Aethelwulf

However some moderator actions are left open to discuss.

Quite a strong proposal from someone who likes to verbally defile peoples parents.. perhaps you should be banned also?

I agree, I think the mods here are good. There are however some nip and tucks required. In what way? I only take my place as participating in science threads I think I can participate in... what's the other poster done that is noteworthy? I haven't seen him place great amounts of time into the science forums. Rather it seems, he like to ''bitch'' about those ''bitching''...

You really are an idiot. Neg rep me folks, ''I have an opinion''!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hiding behind your bugs bunny avatar, I bet you don't even have much knowledge in physics. Ironically, I have not seen you bitching about anything, or even a scientific comment outside of my God thread... makes me think you are incapable of even discussing science.

Oh diddums.. If only life was seen through your rose-tinted spectacles... no one would have a problem, right?

One rule of us... and one for them.

I know As I said before in my last thread, these are the ''Legal Strawmen'' my thread has been closed pending review... very interesting. Leaving it open would have said far less.

Indeed, these are not bullying tactics. These tactics are addressing those on the verge of being hyprocrites.

It's quite clear you have actually (Engaged or) disagreed with the response of negative reputation... if you hadn't, I would expect a totally different response from you. I think of ''off-topic'' as the legal straw man. The only kind of straw man allowed.

The off-topic comments are nonsense. I don't know these moderators personally, but obviously the talk about it being off-topic is rubbish. in my experience, someone proclaims off-topic posts even when it isn't, is topics they don't want to discuss.

What is the rules? It sounds like you have came in here shaking your scepter because you did not like the subject. But it heavily falls within the rules, this is about the reputation system, if you haven't noticed... whether the name ''mod'' falls into it shouldn't count.

No, you being a mod should not come in this thread all ''high and mighty'' about a subject with, which to me, seems clear you have values on. You either like or do not like the reputation system... better yet, why don't you be a backseat mod and only complain on the things you feel should? This is certainly not off-subject, since you clearly have views about it. You want a PM? Yes, why not --- if there is no truth in the other persons claims, then you are quite right to speak it here instead of PM's where there will be no influences.

Off topic? this is about you having a displeasure about the reputation system.... interesting response. I call you a liar, unless the other poster is. In which case, it certainly is not off-topic and I will apologize if there is absolutely no truth behind it.

i was told off another member that you pulled them up them negatively repping your post. Is this true or not?

You lie. Wait a minute... mod action and reputation actions are different, don't close the thread because you don't like the subject. If it is a mod who complains about reputation action, don't make the choice just because the subject is hitting home... you will pretty much put up with anything else! Like some one verbally defiling someones dead mother... for instance.

Again, I will ask, have you ever complained about the negative repping system to anyone? You are avoiding the question empirically.

You said that negative reps and moderation systems are completely different. As a moderator, have you ever complained (To anyone) about it? So please, just answer my question. Have you ever had a problem with anyone negatively repping you? tell me about it. I hate these comments lol

The greater percent maybe... does the lives of many outweigh the few? I think the unjustified nature, (the fact many do not justify their reasons) is reason enough to realize the system is at fault.

I think it could be genetic. After all, homosexuality is observed in nature, in many arrays of animals.

Who are you to negatively rep anyone though? You may have some contradictory ''good intentions'' by negatively repping a post. I bet half or more of those neg reps are actually not backed up without any verbal attire. If I had a black and white view of the world (which let's face it, many people do), I would be negatively repping people all over the place. Are they? Have you ever pulled someone up on negatively repping someone? Be honest now, please.

Don't even start. Of course, there is a breakdown. This has been established time and time again, even by moderators here. The breakdown comes a number of ways... can you name them? Have you really thought about this deep enough to recognize those problems?

That's right, there is no justification for it. Who justifies in the end, their negative rep? Those who do actually justify a neg rep, have something to say. Otherwise, it's utter nonesense. feedback should have comments written with it. Do you judge a book by it's cover?

Look Juan, the wave nature of particles is certainly NOT speculation or a myth. It's a matter of hard scientific facts. Experimental physics led to this understanding, that a particle is not just a wave but a particle as well. The reason is rooted from the double slit experiment. Indeed, a particle moved as a wave through the two slits, however it exhibited a particle nature as well when it reached the screen as a ''dot''.

I think, if moderators don't like something being negatively repped, then they should redirect that dislike to this very thread. They either A) Agree to this reputation system (despite it's flaws) or B) They really don't agree with it If a moderator displaces dislike to it, then the nature of the breakdown of this system runs deeper than those who actually attend this place outside of the free members.

I think the biggest speculation is the Induced Time theory. Ok, my own creation but it is rooted from hard scientific disciplines involving moving clocks in relativity which possess a frame of reference... I don't know.When is a speculation a speculation? Is a speculation backed by evidence a reason to say it can be mainstream?