Somebody joined the forum in 2018. Their last activity was 2018. Though they've only made two posts they downvote every post I make. Small minded science people are so predictable and stupid. Who's sock is somebody?

This is for @Somebody

Edited October 28Oct 28 by Pathway Machine

15 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

Somebody joined the forum in 2018. Their last activity was 2018. Though they've only made two posts they downvote every post I make. Small minded science people are so predictable and stupid. Who's sock is somebody?

This is for @Somebody

You cannot know this. Up and down votes are made anonymously on this forum.

(Mind you, just because you are paranoid it doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get you. 😆)

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You cannot know this. Up and down votes are made anonymously on this forum.

(Mind you, just because you are paranoid it doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get you. 😆)

That's not true and you know it. What a cowardly bunch of hypocrites!

Now. I'm intrigued. I have waged war on a lot of forums that are, shall we say, no longer among the living, but I've never encountered anything like this and I'm wondering what would be some new clever way to respond. Any ideas from the cowards and stupid people?

Just now, Pathway Machine said:

That's not true and you know it. What a cowardly bunch of hypocrites!

Now. I'm intrigued. I have waged war on a lot of forums that are, shall we say, no longer among the living, but I've never encountered anything like this and I'm wondering what would be some new clever way to respond. Any ideas from the cowards and stupid people?

Moderators can know who makes up and down votes. But you are not a moderator.

Relax.

Edited October 28Oct 28 by exchemist

You need to log in to cast votes.
If you log in, it shows up as activity.
Yet Somebody hasn't had any activity since 2018.
How could he/she possibly down-vote you ?

You bible-thumpers can't seem to follow a logical train of thought ...

1 minute ago, MigL said:

You need to log in to cast votes.
If you log in, it shows up as activity.
Yet Somebody hasn't had any activity since 2018.
How could he/she possibly down-vote you ?

You bible-thumpers can't seem to follow a logical train of thought ...

Okay. If that's the way you're going to play it. It's been a while since I've played but I'm excited to get back in the game.

We don't play here.
Again, this is a science forum.

34 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

they downvote every post I make.

It is more likely to be someone on the thread who you are arguing with.

I have been down voted for thanking someone, someone reversed it which was cool.

I don't think I have thanked anyone since.

7 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Moderators can know. But you are not a moderator.

I'm also not an idiot. It doesn't matter, though, really, does it. Every notification that I get that somebody has 'REACTED' to my post results into what? The interesting thing is that this started only after I had upvoted one member so that their reputation went from negative to positive.

2 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

It is more likely to be someone on the thread who you are arguing with.

I have been down voted for thanking someone, someone reversed it which was cool.

I don't think I have thanked anyone since.

How would your brilliant analytical mind divine that @Somebody has existed in the manner that I have described?

Edited October 28Oct 28 by Pathway Machine

Just now, Pathway Machine said:

I'm also not an idiot. It doesn't matter, though, really, does it. Every notification that I get that somebody has 'REACTED' to my post results into what? The interesting thing is that this started only after I had upvoted one member so that their reputation went from negative to positive.

You may not be a complete idiot, I grant you. But you have now been given two good reasons why your accusation must be baseless. So maybe not idiotic, but silly at the very least.

And you are ranting again. If you go on throwing out this abuse at all and sundry, people will eventually tire of you. It’s a pity, because I was hoping to have a sensible discussion with you about science and religion, as it is a topic close to my heart. But evidently, it is not to be.

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You may not be a complete idiot, I grant you. But you have now been given two good reasons why your accusation must be baseless. So maybe not idiotic, but silly at the very least.

And you are ranting again. If you go on throwing out this abuse at all and sundry, people will eventually tire of you. It’s a pity, because I was hoping to have a sensible discussion with you about science and religion, as it is a topic close to my heart. But evidently, it is not to be.

What liars you are. Science, it must be, is a lie. Makes perfect sense. Lies by squabbling little mice people.

Edited October 28Oct 28 by Pathway Machine

Ahhh, insults.
The refuge of the ignorant and lazy ...

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

Ahhh, insults.
The refuge of the ignorant and lazy ...

The refuge of the ignorant isn't insults, it's silencing dissent.

None of you have an intelligent response to the problem of the Bible.

So, what are ya' gonna' do?

You need to get sombody to do the work for you. Liars and idiots.

Edited October 28Oct 28 by Pathway Machine

6 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

None of you have an intelligent response to the problem of the Bible.
So, what are ya' gonna' do?

I have no problem with the Bible; I recognize it for what it is.
Soooo ... I'm not gonna do anything.

But you keep bringing it up at every opportunity ( even when discussing fictitious posters who've been neg-repping you since 2018 ).
What, exactly, are YOU trying ( and failing miserably ) to do ?

1 hour ago, Pathway Machine said:

That's not true and you know it. What a cowardly bunch of hypocrites! Any ideas from the cowards and stupid people?

Moderator Note

We attack ideas here, not people. You are making this personal, and this is supposed to be objective science. Don't do this again, you're on thin ice here. Your discussion style is demeaning and provocative, and it drags most subjects off topic.

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Moderator Note

We attack ideas here, not people. You are making this personal, and this is supposed to be objective science. Don't do this again, you're on thin ice here. Your discussion style is demeaning and provocative, and it drags most subjects off topic.

You attack anyone who has ideas that are effective in demonstrating with absolute certainty your inability to defend your own ideology. Somebody is the unanimous collective who also happens to be a long ago inactive registered member. You don't have the guts to say who downvotes because your afraid that your ideas can't be downvoted by the majority adhering to that ideology. Like every other forum I've been on you have no other way because you have no argument. Your PSYOP is the symbol of your this.

BUT.

Now I've got to play nice. Everyone here knew my fate from the beginning and that it has nothing to do with any of the things you claim above.

1 minute ago, Pathway Machine said:

You attack anyone who has ideas that are effective in demonstrating with absolute certainty your inability to defend your own ideology. Somebody is the unanimous collective who also happens to be a long ago inactive registered member. You don't have the guts to say who downvotes because your afraid that your ideas can't be downvoted by the majority adhering to that ideology. Like every other forum I've been on you have no other way because you have no argument. Your PSYOP is the symbol of your this.

BUT.

Now I've got to play nice. Everyone here knew my fate from the beginning and that it has nothing to do with any of the things you claim above.

OK , this is now sounding increasingly psychiatric. I think you should talk to a doctor, if you haven’t already done so.

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

OK , this is now sounding increasingly psychiatric. I think you should talk to a doctor, if you haven’t already done so.

No sense of humor.

Just now, Pathway Machine said:

You attack anyone who has ideas that are effective in demonstrating with absolute certainty your inability to defend your own ideology.

If an idea warrants attack, is it really effective, or is it a poor idea?

1 minute ago, Pathway Machine said:

Somebody is the unanimous collective who also happens to be a long ago inactive registered member.

I'd like to point out your habit of seeing things that aren't there.

3 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

You don't have the guts to say who downvotes because your afraid that your ideas can't be downvoted by the majority adhering to that ideology.

Downvoting has its place when members aren't listening to criticism. It's only done by active members though, so I have NO idea where your paranoia is coming from. It's not based on facts.

5 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

Like every other forum I've been on you have no other way because you have no argument. Your PSYOP is the symbol of your this.

Sure. It must be all the forums, not you.

6 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

Now I've got to play nice. Everyone here knew my fate from the beginning and that it has nothing to do with any of the things you claim above.

We knew the potential, since you started out rejecting scientific methods, but it was always up to you to present reasoned explanations.

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

We knew the potential, since you started out rejecting scientific methods, but it was always up to you to present reasoned explanations.

Good morning, Phi,

What scientific methods have I rejected and why shouldn't the scientific methods be rejected or criticized any less than the religious ones I've rejected?

Thanks for your comment.

Edited October 28Oct 28 by Pathway Machine

2 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

Any ideas from the cowards and stupid people?

Idea: somebody ≠ Somebody.

@Somebody is a member, no longer active (upper case)

"somebody" (lower case) is a tag used by the software to denote an anonymous member. A moderator would (likely) see the user name.

Just now, Ghideon said:

Idea: somebody ≠ Somebody.

@Somebody is a member, no longer active (upper case)

"somebody" (lower case) is a tag used by the software to denote an anonymous member. A moderator would (likely) see the user name.

I know that. It was a comment, well more of a joke, on the cowardice of anonymity in political silencing and scientific hypocrisy. For example here and here. It may be anonyomous but it's pretty easy to guess who it is.

[ponds fist on desk] It's PSYOPs damnit.

They're everywhere.

Somebody is after you!

Edited October 28Oct 28 by Pathway Machine

3 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

It was a comment, well more of a joke, on the cowardice of anonymity in political silencing and scientific hypocrisy.

Now I'm remembering the cowardice of the creationist extremists, who scream about things like this while NOT offering valid explanations of their own. The ones they offer up are tired and useless, having been debunked many moons ago. God seems to have designed their fingers to go in their ears.

I'll confer with the other mods, but I find your lack of good faith disturbing.

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'll confer with the other mods, but I find your lack of good faith disturbing.

I'd prefer you not, I don't want to make trouble for anyone, I just think it's funny. It only means to me that maybe my work here at sciencforums is perhaps too easy. If I were looking for a challenge of my beliefs I wouldn't find it in that sort of response.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

lack of good faith disturbing.

good faith ?

something a bit ironic there.

😄