swansont

milkywayhalo banned as yet another sockpuppet of mpc755 as has deformationcontinuousmedia (post deleted as well)

Linus was banned for spamming his crackpot pdf link all over the place. Normally spammers aren't logged, but his posts generated a few responses, and as crackpots have a tendency to return after being banned it's good to keep a record of them.

No, they won't, but it's because of mathematics and economics.

That's not forbidden. It depends on how much you are borrowing. That's not forbidden.

rwjefferson is suspended for his trolling.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75794-things-that-are-wrong-imo/?p=749996 It is incumbent upon the poster to make sure your posts are relevant to the thread, which means they contain enough information to make that association. Otherwise it's no better than spouting random words and until that association is made, off-topic. Snorkel. Albuquerque.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75015-two-mass-hanging-on-a-pulley/?p=744829 Let's see here. "if the cords are Mass-less then there cannot be tension on the pulley" is wrong, and though that's not why the warning was issued, it's a bad start. This is a physics 101 problem, so anything but a physics 101 solution is off-topic. All the blabbering about quantum fields, regardless of its veracity, is way beyond the scope of a question whose answer simply involves Newton's laws of motion. And some of it is non-standard physics. That's why the warning was issued.

Arjun Deepak Shriram has left, and we've locked the door after him.

agachak will not be posting his usual nonsense for at least a+a-a+a days (a=3.5)

Ben Banana has been suspended 7 days for abusive behavior and daring us to suspend him. Happy to comply.

Upon further review subsequent to an inappropriate email, the suspension of Wolfhart WIlimczik has been extended indefinitely.

fertilizerspike has been banned for an epic meltdown involving grossly inappropriate language

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73694-ufoet-phenomenon/page-7#entry736263 "what are the reasons that a thread can be closed?" Breaking rules, or re-introducing a closed topic. Beyond the obvious ones of devolving onto personal attacks, etc., breaking rules can include not providing valid evidence (in speculations, this is mandated) and repeating arguments without acknowledging counterarguments, which counts as preaching/soapboxing.

Popcorn Sutton has been suspended 7 days for repeated thread hijacking

Consistency has been suspended 3 days for insults and thread hijacking

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73185-should-a-neanderthal-be-cloned/#entry732917 Really? There's a question about this? "Italian's look like Neanderthal's" is a racial slur (plus a double count of grammarcide)

! Moderator Note This is a science thread. If you want to discuss non-mainstream topics, take it to speculations. (see rules 5 and 10) Responding to this modnote here would be also be a rule 5 violation.

I finished Deborah Blum's The Poisoner's Handbook. Very well written. A story of the rise of forensic pathology in NYC in the context of poisoning deaths, largely during the prohibition era. Then I read Angel Killer (same author) which is about tracking down a mass murderer/cannibal.

joeman has been suspended for hijacking and repeated soapboxing

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73025-thread-hijack-basic-building-blocks/#entry730261 Was a thread hijack. The rule (10) here is quite straightforward Meaning that if a moderator sees a statement which starts "I have theory that…" , it could not be clearer that thread hijacking is taking place. It's spelled out in the rules for a reason.

We ask that if you have an issue with moderation you use the report post function rather than further derail a thread, and we thank everyone for doing so. This thread can be used as a response for communication by the staff, to further clarify the actions. ____ http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72856-how-many-photonscm3/page-3#entry729892 The post was a hijack with non-mainstream physics ("heavy photons"), though that remark has since been edited; mechanisms for creating and annihilating photons is (currently) beyond its scope. The thread in question was not split off from an existing thread (as the report claimed), though it would not matter — discussions are supposed to stem from the OP and legitimate, related answers. It is not permission to ask about or post information that is unrelated to that discussion. The discussion in this case is about numbers of photons, and brightness of areas of space from various objects. Short version: a thread is supposed to be about what its originator wants to discuss.

We get the occasional posts asking for survey or poll responses, or other kinds of scientific participation. This will be a clearinghouse thread for such posts. Do not use a link shortener - the actual url should be displayed Since these are generally one-way communications, responses will be deleted.

alpha2cen has been banned for repeated violations of the thread hijacking rule. Despite many warnings and a previous suspension, the disruptive behavior did not abate.

I think this bears repeating. (Negative) reputation is a way for the rank and file user to voice (dis)satisfaction with a post, for whatever reason you want. Positive rep for some positive aspect, and negative rep for a negative one, perhaps for a post that is treading into the territory of rules violations, via e.g. rudeness. It's a way to give feedback without having to derail a thread by pointing/calling out the behavior, which is something we don't want to see happen — tangents are often a distraction. Not everybody responds to authority, as we mods know all too well, but such people might respond to social pressure that reputation affords.

As has the cleverly-named incompressible-fluid