Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by pmb

  1. E=mc^2

    Mass can neither be created nor destroyed.

    You have to be cautious in forums suchs this. Different people mean different things when they use the term mass. For example, in A first course in general relativity by Bernrd F. Schutz the author writes on page 94 ..energy and 'inertial mass' are frame dependant ... and on page 104 he writes ...energy and mass are the same.... Other people refer to mass as being synonymous with proper mass. Severian is talking about proper mass (aka rest mass). I think that with this in mind you'll better understand the subject matter.


    Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. And we know from observation of an object exploding that there is less mass after a release of energy.

    The way Taylor and Wheeler describe mass then in such explosions the mass remains unchanged. In their text the term "mass" refers to what is known as invariant mass. This means that we sum up all the energies of all the particles and cal it E and sum up all the momenta of the particles and call it p. The mass according to them is the m in [math]E^2 - (pc)^2 - m^2c^4[/math] and this remains constant during a nuclear explosion. This is because energy is conserved and in the zero momentum frame E = mc2


    From this can we assume mass is stored energy?

    In a sense, sure. The energy is bound up in what is called binding energy which is essentially potential energy, which is negative.


    Or is mass transformed from this abstract substance into another abstract substance?

    While its true that both energy or mass are conserved, its also true that matter changes form. When an electon and a positron annihilate what is left is photons. So the form of the matter changed.


    Before you respond let me ask you a few off topic questions. what do the curvature of a circle, the parallels of a right triangle, and many other observations of existence have in common? How do they differ from Euler's identity?

    Ya got me.

  2. It is perfectly consistent to define mass as the frame dependent "relativistic mass" if you like. But it is a bit silly for 3 reasons:

    It's hardly silly. Many relativity textbooks us it. Percentage wise about 67% of textbooks published between 1970 and now use it. I see no valid reason to think it silly when that many physicists use it


    1. All professional physicists mean "rest mass" when they say mass.

    That's incorrect. I was speaking to a well-known cosmologist/particle physicist yesterday and he told me that in cosmology physicists use the term "mass" to refer to E/c2. H'e's very very well-known in his field so I trust him. Plus I have several relativity texts which prove otherwise. The list inlcludes such texts by such authors as Misner Thorne and Wheeler (page 141), Mould, Rindler, D'Inverno, Schutz. Stephani.


    You can see a short list here with the relevant quotes



    3. If m is used to denote relativistic mass, we have momentum p=mv. This is a waste of notation since p and v are now always proportional to one another. It is much more convenient to keep a non-linear relation between them, i.e. [math]p=\gamma m v[/math] with [math]\gamma = 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}.[/math]

    That relation doesn't always hold. On example is when the body is under stress. [math]p=\gamma m v[/math] is inlid under such a case but p = mv is still valid. Another example is an extended body which is emitting radiation. In such a case the mass per unit length of the rod can be uniformly decreasing. In an inertial frame moving parallel to the rod the mass per unit length is not uniform. The proper time in this case has no meaning so that


    [math]p = m\frac{dt}{d/tau}[/math]


    has no meaning. However p = mv still has meaning. For details please see



    See last section entitled An Incorrect Application of Invariant Mass

  3. Hello Folks!


    I'm newly back and want to say hello and that I sure missed some of you. I miss some lively and challanging threads with some people I have a lot of respect for. Thanks for being here folks! :)


    Now that I'm back I want to fresh and not make any mistakes and get a better understanding of the rules. I seemed to have posted things that I wasn't in the wave-particle duality thread. So I want to learn what to do in certain instances. Not only from moderators but mainly from other members who've run into similar situations and was able to resolve it to their satisfaction without getting a red moderator tip directed at them (I hate it when that happens). So I decided to start a thead about what kinds of things we can do when we encounter irritating circumstances.


    Let me give an example: I a thread in this forum someone posted an assertion that I said something in a thread that I never said at all. In fact my entire contribution to that thread was the opposite of what was asserted. When I asked that person not to put words into my mouth. Not only was I ignored but when I asked them to provide proof the asertation repeated and no proof provided. That's pretty irritating. If I express my irritation will I get into trouble? Do we have the right to express emotion here?


    I was going to ignore the whole thing it since I didn't see that I had any recourse. I tried the report system but saw no action taken. However I just saw Phi fo All post the following comment when stating the reason for suspending a member. See -- http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/page__view__findpost__p__691185

    ...for failure to provide evidence for his assertions....

    That seems to have been when the straw that broke the camels back. Can't there be a rule whereby when some accuses a member of saying something that the person who makes the claim must prove their claim when requested? Otherwise people can otherwise get away with lying.


    Then there are other examples where evidence is desired for questionable assertions? For example, if someone says that's not correct in mainstream physics then there should be a criteria for proof. E.g. quoting an undergraduate or graduate level text on the subject.


    After all the rules say, i.e. from http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/7813-science-forums-etiquette/

    Give Sources

    If you are asking a question or making a point, give references and links so users can see what you are talking about. If they have context, they can better understand you.

    I always back up what I say with textbook references. I see that's a rare thing here though.


    Then there is the overuse of strawman arguments here. They are banned by the rules but it never seems to be enforced, i.e.


    Don't Strawman

    Don't strawman. It is quite annoying and you will lose your credibility, and seriously undermines any argument.

    The link to Strawman reads - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

    The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

    This is what happened when I was misquoted. We already lost one member because of irritating things like this. Can't we call them out in a way that is acceptable to the powers that be? I mean I don't want any more complaints about me so I'm trying to figure out what to do about things like this. I posted this in a public thread because I wanted to see if I was the only one having this problem.


    I thought I'd include the definition and trademarks of pseudoscience as defined in my logic text Practical Logic: An Antidote for Uncritical Thinking by Soccio and Barry. This way we might more readily recognize it when we see it. At least some of its trademarks. From page 384-385

    Pseudoscience, a term coined by MArtin Gardner, refers to a certain category of theories, systems and explanations, which though claiming to be "scientific," in fact use only the trappings of genuine science and avoid the rigors of checks and balances of the scientific method or the scrutiny of disinterested experts.

    ...What, then, are the basic characteristics of the pseudoscientists?


    1. "First and foremost of these traits is that [they] work in almost total isolation from their collages ... isolation in the sense of having no fruitful contacts with fellow researchers.


    2. The pseudoscientist submits his or her work not to bona fide experts in the field but to the general public, though the publich is not qualified to evaluate it.


    3. The pseudoscientist speaks through organizations he or she has founded, thus avoiding genuine peer review and conveying an aura of professional expertise.


    4. The pseudoscientist considers himself or herself to be a genius (most likely misunderstood and persecuted).


    5. The pseudoscientist regards colleagues to be, almost without exception, "blockheads" (Gardner's term)


    6. The pseudoscientist compares himself or herself to Galileo, Bruno, Pasteur, or other well-known, well-respected scientists whose work met initial hostility and resistance. The pseudoscientist repeatedly cites comparisons between his or her own case and historical ases of persecution of true scientific genius, which was initially misunderstood. (This functions as a form of the fallacy of positioning).


    7. The pseudoscientist exibits strong compulsion to focus criticism on the greatest scientists and/or best-established theories of the day.


    8. The pseudoscientist tends to write in complex jargon often making use of phrases, terms and locutions he or she has coined. This rhetoric can be quite persuasive, creating a beautifully crafted jigsaw puzzle of assertions. Clever use of circular reasoning, equivocations, and other persuasive tricks makes it difficut to refute pseudoscience by logic and authentic scientific evidence.



  4. Can we make one photon particle?


    [latex]\bigodot ... \bigodot ...... \bigodot [/latex]


    What is the minimum unit to make or to detect?


    the mass of the Sun = total mass of the Sun - photon mass in the Sun

    Do we have no problem in this equation?

    I don't know what this is supposed to say. It appears to say


    Total Mass of Sun = Mass of Sun + Photon Mass of the Sun


    The mass of the sun is a complicated function of the mass-energy of the particles in the plasma that mack up all the matter of the sun, radiation included. This includes the rest mass of all the nuclei in the sun plus the kinetic energy of all those nuclei. This includes the contribution to the mass of the sun by the radiation in the sun, i.e. photons. To be precise, pressure is also a source of gravity. It has more relevance for objects such as neutron stars. The active gravitational mass of a perfect fluid is


    [math]\rho_g = \rho + 3p[/math]


    where [math]\rho_g[/math] is active gravitional mass, [math]\rho[/math] = proper energy density and p = pressure. For disordered radiation both [math]\rho[/math] and p are non-zero.


    A photon has no "at rest" mass ..

    Nice! The point you made is the same point made in the physics literature.


    I prefer the term proper mass ove rest mass anyday. Even though the proper mass of photons is zero we still have


    1) Inertial mass (aka relativistic mass) of photon is non-zero

    2) Passive gravitational mass of light is non-zero

    2) Active gravitational mass of light is non-zero


    ... Learn some physics...No. Learn some physics.

    Ummmm ........ he's here to learn physics. Hence his questions.

  5. Shankar is a beginners' text, which gives an introduction to QM. More advanced texts correct the "flaws" and "nonsense" in books as that.

    Comments such as this on the graduate level text I quoted you, and which you failed to shoot down, doesn't speak well for the quality of your opinion. There simply doesn't exist a text or a peer reviewed physics journal article which says the the wave-particle duality is a myth. Many of us, such as myself, know quantum mechanics very well (graduate level) and know what you've been claiming is total nonsense. Don't you understand that?



    Moderator Note



    Please stop derailing the thread. If you wish to discuss it, you know what to do.

    My appologies. I was simply commenting on the tact that I'm taking here.

  6. !

    Moderator Note

    pmb and juan,


    Seriously, the personal snipes have to stop. Staff are getting a bit tired of having to babysit the threads you two participate in together and having to warn you both about making personal remarks. Tip: if you can't address the content of the posts without making it in some way personal, might I suggest that you simply don't respond. If you can't do this, you will be facing disciplinary action.


    Also, Aethwulf, the same goes for you.

    I haven't insulted juan and I never said anything rude. I also haven't stated something that wasn't true, e.g. that I never said a particle is a wave. The worst thing I did was to point out that juan was using a personal attack on immortal and is inccesant false accusations claiming I said something which I'd never say to anybody. It really bothers me to see people insult/attack others. But in order to take on a new state of politeness and civilness I have deleted those remarks.


    What are we supposed to do when people make false accusations? You give off the impression that it I say that someone is usig a falsehood that I'd get into trouble for pointing it out, regardless of how I go about it. What are we supposed to do we do in those cases?

  7. You said that a particle is a wave.

    You're wrong. I already told you that and you simply ignored it. That is not how a cogent argument progresses.


    Prove me wrong. Reference a post where I said a particle is a wave. Until then stop putting words into my mouth.

  8. I don't go by books, I prefer scientific papers and if this interpretation was so popular and so much accepted I find it hard to believe that there is hardly not a single paper about it. Can you cite papers for your interpretation so that I can understand your arguments better without any confusion.

    I myself go by books for the basics of physics and this is a well-known fact in quantum mechanics and is quite often addressed in text books. That's why I rely on them so much. Papers don't address basic physics for the most part so its much harder to find such an article.


    Here is a section from Shankar's QM text (graduate level). From Principles of Quantum mechanics - 2nd Ed. by R. Shankar (graduate level quantum mechanics text), page 113

    We found that entities such as the electron are particles in the classical sense in that when detected they seem to carry all their energy, momentum, charge, etc. in localized form: and at the same time that are not particlelike in that assuming they move along definite trajectories leads to conflict with experiment. It appears that each particle has associated with it a wave function [math]\Psi(x, t)[/math], such that [math]|\Psi(x, t)|^2[/math], gives the probability of finding it at a point c at time t. This is called wave-particle duality.

    That and [math]\lambda = h/p[/math] expresses the wave-particle duality.


    There is a lot of difference between quoting anonymous users and quoting words from respected physicists and scientists. Can't you see that?

    He's very selective about what he posts. I guess that's just human behaviour. He never mentioned the wave-particle duality as mentioned by Feynman in QED but posted other comments, which when taken out of context, appears to support his position.


    No, the CERN website doesn't give us the definition of the particle which you're using. Do you care to give us your defintion of the quantum particle?

    CERN has better things to do with its website then post basic QM. Or maybe I can find something that juan overlooked (intentionaly?). I'll search the website and see what I find.

  9. Thought I would explain why I behaved so... frivolously a week ago.


    I intentionally did it. I was sick that people could get away with some of the most foul comments and so I wondered how long it would be before I got a ban if I dished out some foul comments myself.

    While I don't condone that behaviour I believe that I can, to a certain extent, empathize with your feeling.


    Did it work? Yes it did. I even served my time. But what gets me is that the culprits before me never got a ban, only polite warnings.

    It appears that way to me too.


    Anyway. I don't think I will be spending as much time here after today, something I decided during my little break. Which I am sure, will make some of you all the great deal happier.

    I hope you change your mind. I find this place more tolerable with you here. From our discussions in private I've gotten to know you personally and that side of you doesn't come out here. If it did then I'm sure you wouldn't run into such problems.

  10. pmb

    Sorry that was my fault for not using x as the dummy variable.


    Replace x by w, with w=(x-vt)

    Today I followed an ad hoc derivation of Schrodinger's equation. I confirmed what I long knew, i.e. that a wave function of the form


    [math]\psi(x, t) = Ae^{i(kx - \omega t)}[/math]


    is a solution to both Schrodinger's equation and the wave equations. Are you familiar with such a derivation?

  11. You and Aethelwul are saying that the wave-particle duality states that a single particle is a wave. Both of you are plain wrong.

    Please don't put words into my mouth. I never said any such thing.


    In my opinion your arguement is flawed in that nobody has suggested that a single particle is a wave, nobody whatsoever, and your arguements are based soley on that false assuption that someone said that particle is a wave. Nobody said that in this thread. Lok for yourself. If what you say is true then you'd be able to give us a post number where it occured. I myself have never said, thought, or implied any such thing. Herein lies the flaw in your argument.


    In fact in my very first post in this thread, i.e. post #16, I said that I love the way Feynman explains it in his Lectures. In V-II page 1-1 Feynman writes

    "Quantum mechanics" is the description of the behavior of matter and light in all details and, in particular, of the happenings on an atomic scale. Things on an atomic scale behave like nothing that you have any direct experience about. They do not behave like waves, they do not behave like particles, they do not behave like clouds, or billiard balls, or weights on springs, or like anything that you have ever seen.

    Newton thought that light was made up of particles, but then it was discovered that it behaves like a wave. Later, however (in the beginning of the twentieth century), it was found that light did indeed sometimes behave like a particle, and then it was found that in many respects it behaved like a wave. So it really behaves like neither. Now we have given up. We say: "It i like neither."

    Bolding is mine. That means that a particle is not a wave.


    If you look in Feynman's book QED and check the index then you'll see that Feynman explains the wave-particle duality on pages 23 and 37. What I found relavent is one the wavelike character of electrons on page 84. On page 84 he hits the nail on the head when he writes

    In 1924 Louis De Broglie found that there was a wavelike character associated with electrons, and soon afterwards, C. J. Davisson and L. H. Germer at Bell Laboratories bombarded a nickel crystal with electons and showed that they, too, bounced off at craxy angles (just like X-rays do), and that these angles could be calculated from De Broglie's formula for the wavelength of an electron.

    The bolding is mine. This is pecisely what we've all been saying all this time and which you claim is wrong. Feynman clearly said wavelength of an electron. This is what it means for a beam of electrons or an ensemble of them. to have wavelike properties. IT must be the fact that each electron has a wavelike property in order for the Davisson-Germer experiment to demonstrate wavelike characteristics.


    The term "wave like characteristics" does not mean that a particle is a wave.

  12. No. Experimental physics does not claim that a particle is a wave.

    Nobody in this thread has suggested that a particle is a wave. That's why I quoted Feynman. He said just the opposite, i.e. from post #16

    "Quantum mechanics" is the description of the behavior of matter and light in all details and, in particular, of the happenings on an atomic scale. Things on an atomic scale behave like nothing that you have any direct experience about. They do not behave like waves, they do not behave like particles, they do not behave like clouds, or billiard balls, or weights on springs, or like anything that you have ever seen.

    Newton thought that ligt was made up of particles, but then it was discovered that it behaves like a wave. Later, however (in the beginning of the twentieth century), t was found thalight did indeed sometimes behave like a particle, and then it was found that in many respects it behaved like a wave. So it really behaves like neither. Now we have given up. We say: "It i like neither."

    See what I mean? We know that they don't behave like waves.

  13. Therefore, before continuing correcting your mistakes just say me what part of the phrase "there is no wave particle duality" you do not still understand.

    All that means is that the people that you're quoting don't understand the wave-particle duality.


    What part of


    [math]\lambda = \frac{h}{p}[/math]

    probability density = [math]|\psi(x)|^2[/math]


    don't you understand? Those two relations epitomizes the wave-particle duality. Which of those two expression are you claiming is wrong and why?

  14. As a friendly word of advice, telling a moderator not to get his panties in a knot when you're questioning the way in which they do their jobs - not a good idea.

    What can I say? I was frustrated at his wild accusations and him getting all flustered about something that appears only to have happened in his mind and not in reality.


    For example:


    CaptainPanic - I reviewed my contribution in the most recent thread in the suggestions section, i.e. the one about the rep-system. You claimed that I have 94 (!) posts in the Suggestions, Comments and Support section. I have no way to verify and examine those posts to see what they were about. So what I did was to examine the thread I knew about, i.e. the one about the "reputation system" thread.


    Here is what I found - Out of the 272 posts in that thread I created 31 of them. That accounts for 31 of the 94 posts you mentioned. Out of those 31 posts only 4 of them contained comments about modertors. Out of those 4 posts about moderators, one of them was about you in which I said (in post #238) CaptainPanic deserves an accomadation for the way he moderates. The other moderators should take him as guiding post.


    That really doesn't come off as your comment seems to suggest. It therefore you seem to have taken things out of context. Refering to things that perhaps happened months ago and which may not have anything to do with negative comments about moderation. I'd wager that the other posts of mine in that section are about the subject of ad hominems. I don't ever recall why I put it in that section. Probably because it didn't seem to go into the other sections.

  15. The generalization and suggestion that we're constantly abusing our powers makes me want to prove you right.

    I don't understand why you keep putting words into my mouth? I never suggested that moderators generally abuse their powers. I wouldn't even believe it someone claimed it.


    A few questions is fine, ..

    And that's all I asked, i.e. I only asked two questions about it.


    and although I cannot be bothered to look it up, I am sure we answered those initial questions patiently and politely.

    That's correct. They were.


    But seriously, you just never stop.

    Again with the exageration? Why do you keep doing that? You are quite wrong in yoru accusation that I never stop. As far as I'm concerned I only had two questions. One in the "reputation system" thread and one here. Both of them was addressed to my satisfaction. The one here was addressed back at ppst #8. After that I've just been disuading false accusations.


    This whole time I merely inquired into it twice.


    And that's what makes us annoyed. You have 94 (!) posts in the Suggestions, Comments and Support section. More than most staff members in fact. I think "asking questions about their job" is quite an understatement.

    You're taking this out of context. You make it appear as if I was complaining about the moderators 94 times. I didn't. First off that thread was about me. I.e. in post #1 the OP wrote, in part

    People like... pmb who is very capable of talking about scientfic ''things'' and helping people. No doubt he has dedicated a lot of time to answer people but you take one look on his personal profile and you see he has a negative reputation. Any outsider would look at that and think he is... unreliable, contrary to him being a physicist.

    That's the first post in that thread where my name came up. I didn't even post until post #48. And I didn't mention moderators in that post. I only chimed in about moderators when a moderator criticized my use of the rep system. It seems I may have misunderstood them though.


    We're doing our jobs to the best of our abilities, and from all observations I've made so far on the internet, this is a friendly place... but even the near-perfect mods of SFN have their limits. And 94 posts with questions about their jobs is very very near that limit.

    That was mere polite discussion about moderation. Don't get your panties in a knot over it.


    In the mean time I plan on going through all of those posts in that thread and examine how many of them were actually me commenting on moderators. I'll get back to ou after that.


    In the mean time I once again ask you to please stop exagerating. It gives off a false impression.

  16. 1. It's a frigging discussion forum. Opinions are implicitly sought.

    Opinions are sought on the subject matter, not on off topic distractions such as silly things like me asking swansont why he was frustrated over a disagreement.


    2. You opened this thread with these words: "I'd like a second opinion on something I was faced with elsewhere."

    Yes. That's what I stated. But that wasn't the question. The question was Would you say that this is an ad hominem? which was a question asked about a particular ad hominem. What you commented on was something that was not on topic, i.e. not about that particular a hominem. But if you thought it neccesary to ask about that then you didn't need to be rude about it.

  17. Frankly, your constant attention to the moderation here is getting on my nerves. Yes, we make mistakes. We're all very sorry that we're not perfect. And if you don't like it, you can go and find another forum.

    You're being unfair. All my questions were basically answered in post #8 where you told us that moderators are bound by the same rules that we are. Yes. I bitch when I see a moderator post a comment which I percieve as rude. Big deal. I do the same thing when I see anybody being rude. Why should moderators be exempt? People in positions of autority usually aren't above the laws they enforce. Is that different here? Are moderators really so darned offended when we ask them questions about their job? You make it appear as if inquiries are really condamnations. They aren't. Anybody who thinks that is being paranoid.


    As you youtrself just said, we're not perfect. Your comment about finding another forum is unfair too. It reminds me of those people who say If you don't like America then why don't you leave? The purpose of this thread is to end my inquery into the subject, not to bash moderators. I've already stated this.


    In post #13 I wrote

    But please don't get me wrong. I love the moderators here. I really do. They do a wonderful job and I am now taking the opportunity to express that sentiment.


    In post #21 I wrote

    For the most part the moderators are really wonderful and I admire them. This forum's moderators beat out other forum moderators.


    Is this what you're complaining about? Are you pissed off because I admire the moderators as a whole?


    My real concern here pertains to a couple PMs I got from a moderator who insulted me in them. First the moderator sends me a PM complaining about a PM I sent to another member for being rude and then the same moderator is rude to me because I happen to experience emotions deeply. I've always been that way and its not as if I have a switch where I can turn it off.


    Please tell us, other than handing over the entire forum to you, is there any way that you can stop complaining?

    Sure. Stop exagerating and putting words into people's mouths and if someone thanks you or tells you that they admire you, don't complain about it. How's that for starters?

  18. Golly. It really is too bad they're just humans.

    You're acting like your their mother when in fact they're grown adults who are responsible for their actions. Its not as if they're children who can't control their actions. All I'm saying is that they shouldn't be hypocrits, that they shoulld act like they're expecting us to act. Being human doesn't mean that they are incapable of doing that. All moderators are capable of posting moderatror comments in the polite fashion that they expect us to post our responses.


    Let us recall what this forum is. The subect matter for this forum is Suggestions, Comments and Support. That's why I posted this in this subfoum,


    Thanks for the response, but my question was for Aethelwulf.

    Yep. I was simply adding my 2 cents since this is the subject of this thread.

  19. To what flaws specifically are you referring?

    What specific changes would you like to see implemented?

    Myself, moderators expect us to be polite, which I appreciate. I very much enjoy a forum where the membrs are polite so I appreciate that kind of thing. However there are a few moderators who aren't always polite themselves and they really should be, expecially when they're moderating. Otherwise moderator directions, comming from somone who is expressing anger or impatience, can actually work against calming people down and as a result some members, unfortunately even me in the past, then feel the need snap back in kind. I'm working to get that under control on my end but its hard when someone is being mean to get what they want.

  20. I did and experiment where I used a small circular cloud chamber to see the trail of mist created by an Alpha particle and I put a small cylindrical shaped rare earth magnet inside the chamber, the result was that every time an Alpha particle passed by the magnet the vapor trail left by it would be drawn toward the magnet and on some occasions the vapor molecules would find an orbit on the magnetic field of the magnet, I soon had a dozen or so molecules fallowing each other on a spiraling orbit from one end of the magnet to the other and then upon reaching the end just got flung off the orbit.

    my theory is that magnetic fields have a motion from the negative to the positive which is why anything caught within the magnetic field is drawn to the magnet, and which is why quantum levitation is possible

    No. Magnetic fields cannot correctly be thought of as moving. They can be thought ofhas hava direction though and given the Lorentx force acting on an alpha particle I would expect the results you just reported.


    Where did you get a cloud chamber and source of alpha particles from if I may ask?

  21. I was not suggesting that you should be held responsible for someone else's actions. I was simply stating that the thread was indeed degenerating into a bitch fest, whether you had anything to do with it or not.

    Thanks. I appreciate that.


    I avoided acknowledging those negative emotions during the entire 'reputation' thread. Avoiding it is a worthy effort, but if avoiding it fails, then it is time to step up and say something.


    This whole discussion of the reputation system and the mods has become a farce.

    Yeah. I know. I've found it helpful to talk to people in PM about these kinds of things. It turns out that the people you might apprear to be real jerks turn out to be very nice people. You jnust need to get to know them, that's all. I found it to be a very rewarding experience myself. A real education too.


    The reputation system is given to the users by the forum, with a general expectation as to how it will be used. But no one is under any illusions. The users themselves will determine how it is ultimately used. I understand someone expressing their concerns about it, but discussing it for 14 pages is ridiculous. It's a rep system, anonymously assigning points to anonymous people. This is not someone's MCAT score.

    Yeah, but a conversation consists of more than one person. If the conversatin continued for 14 pages then it was caused, in part, by the moderators defending themselves. No matter what the circumstances are, when someone is trying to defend their actions it is never fully accepted. I've seen that too many times to count and that's what I saw in that thread. People defending themselves.


    The mods work for free to help make this site as good as it is. I know from experience that the more someone volunteers to help the more they become the target of criticism. The mods are the ones using their best judgement, on their own time, to improve our experience. Again, I understand someone expressing their concerns, but given that the mods are not really making any life or death decisions, I think it behooves us all to back off a bit and cut them some slack.

    OIf course. And this thread shouldn't be used as an excuse to criticize them or the poeple who have arguments with them.


    I expect that moderators do what they do because it has its rewards on its own. There must be some satisfaction in moderating a forum. Perhaps people enjoy having a saw a to how a forum runs or whatever the case may be.

  22. Are their specific instances you can cite where you believe moderators were breaking the rules because if not I am not sure I understand the point of discussing what would then be a non-issue.

    These kinds of things are private which means that they came in PM and therefore it should remain there. A few days I anonymously discussed such a PM. Even though I kept it private as to who was who the other person was very upset that I mentioned in in open forum. Therefore I don't want to make the same mistake again. I'd be glad to discuss it with you in PM though if you want. If so then please send me a PM stating what you want to know. I'l considerate to make sure its not something someone could get angry with me again and we can go from there.

  23. It may not have been your intention for it to be so but that is what it became in short order. Read again the first three posts in this thread by Aethelwulf and tell me whether or not he was crapping on the moderators.

    Yeah. I'm well aware of that but there's nothing I can do about it. With accolations sometimes come objections. While iI'm interested in discussing moderator actions and responsinilities it doesn't mean I can force people from going off topic. But responding to negative emotions acts to keep those emotions alive. It's best to avoid acknowledging negative emotions.


    But even then its sometimes getting people to open up about negative feelings that have been raised can sometimes be a good thing, kind of a carthartic thing. Just remember that when you respond to them you're doing the same thing, i.e. you've let it take you down a negative path when that happens. But that happens in all too many threads.

  24. I wonder if it would be appropriate for non-staff members like me to openly call for a ban of these asshats to give the mods some cover when they ultimately have to make that decision and terminate their accounts.

    Please don't exagerate the purpose of this thread. The moderators are grown adults. They can take care of themselves. You're making it appear as if this is a crap-on-moderator thread for some reason. It's not. The openting post stated its purpose, i.e.

    to breath life into that subject and as such to discuss everything about being a moderator such as whether the forum rules should be construed as applying to them.


    My opening question is therefore: Is it against the forum rules for a moderator to be rude to a member when they are operating in moderator mode? Are we allowed to disscuss moderation and moderator actions in threads?

    For the most part the moderators are really wonderful and I admire them. This forum's moderators beat out other forum moderators. But the question did come up about what moderators do around here and I was curious as to whether they hold themselves to the same standards that they holdus against. Cap'n Refsmmat has explained all that to me so I'm now satisfied.


    So please stop trying to drag this thread down and please cease your attempts at making it appear as if it was a moderator bashing thread. It's not and I object to that implication.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.