Hubble sees spiral bridge of young stars between two ancient galaxies

Jul 10, 2014
This new NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows two galaxies from the cluster SDSS J1531+3414. Credit: NASA, ESA/Hubble and Grant Tremblay (European Southern Observatory)

Astronomers routinely use the crisp view of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to study all kinds of intricate details in galaxy clusters. By now you would think they've seen it all—but nature always has new surprises in store.

The latest is an uncanny 100,000-light-year-long structure that looks like a string of pearls twisted into a corkscrew shape that winds around the cores of two colliding galaxies. Astronomers don't quite know how to explain the origin and ultimate fate of the object, but the answer must be extraordinary, say scientists.

The Slinky-structure's unique morphology may yield new insights into the formation of stellar superclusters, the merger-driven growth of galaxies, and gas dynamics in the rarely seen merger process of two giant .

"We were surprised to find this stunning morphology, which must be very short-lived" (perhaps about 10 million years, which is a fraction of the time it takes for galaxies to merge), said Grant Tremblay of the European Southern Observatory in Garching, Germany. "We've long known that the 'beads on a string' phenomenon is seen in the arms of spiral galaxies and in tidal bridges between interacting galaxies. However, this particular supercluster arrangement has never been seen before in giant merging elliptical galaxies," he said. "We have two monsters playing tug-of-war with a necklace, and its ultimate fate is an interesting question in the context of the formation of stellar superclusters and the merger-driven growth of a galaxy's stellar component."

This is a Hubble Space Telescope photograph of a never-before-seen string of pearls twisted into a corkscrew shape that winds around the cores of two colliding galaxies. The "pearls" are superclusters of blazing, blue-white, newly born stars. The whole assembly must result from the gravitational tidal forces present in the galaxy collision. The serendipitous discovery was made while astronomers were studying the galaxy cluster SDSS J1531+3414. The underlying physics behind the "beads on a string" shape is related to describing the behavior of self-gravitating clumps of gas. It's analogous to the process where rain falls in drops rather than in continuous filaments from clouds. It's called the Jeans instability, and it can play out on distance scales of enormous orders of magnitude. Credit: NASA, ESA, and G. Tremblay (European Southern Observatory)

Like a string of pearls, these young, blue "" are evenly spaced along the chain at separations of 3,000 light-years from one another. The pair of elliptical galaxies is embedded deep inside the dense galaxy cluster SDSS J1531+3414. The cluster's powerful gravity warps the image of background galaxies into blue streaks and arcs that give the illusion of being inside the cluster. The astronomers' first hypothesis was that the "string of pearls" was actually a lensed image from one of these background galaxies, but their recent follow-up observations with the Nordic Optical Telescope definitively rules this out.

The is part of a Hubble program to look at 23 clusters that are so massive they create powerful gravitational lensing effects on the sky. The clusters were first cataloged in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Tremblay's team serendipitously discovered the highly bizarre string of stellar superclusters while reviewing the images as they came in from Hubble. "We were stunned by what we saw in SDSS J1531+3414," Tremblay said. "The uniqueness of this source spurred follow-up observations with both ground- and space-based telescopes."

"This is a beautiful demonstration of the profound scale-invariance of the fundamental laws of nature," Tremblay added. The underlying physical processes that give rise to the "beads on a string" morphology are related to the Jeans instability, describing the behavior of self-gravitating clumps of gas. It's analogous to the process that causes a falling column of water to disrupt, explaining why rain falls in drops rather than in continuous filaments from clouds. Water coming out of the kitchen tap eventually breaks into a series of droplets, and a very similar process is happening in SDSS J1531+3414. "We see the same physics on 100,000-light-year scales that we see in our kitchen sinks and inkjet printers," said Tremblay.

Scientists are currently working on a better understanding of the origin of the chain. One possibility is that the cold molecular gas fueling the burst of star formation may have been native to the two merging galaxies. Another possibility is a so-called "cooling flow" scenario, where gas cools from the ultra-hot (10 million degree) atmosphere of plasma that surrounds the galaxies, forming pools of cold molecular gas that starts to form stars. The third possibility is that the cold gas fueling the chain of originates from a high-temperature shock wave created when the two giant elliptical crash together. This collision compresses the gas and creates a sheet of dense, cooling plasma.

"Whatever the origin for this star-forming gas is, the result is awesome. It's very exciting. You can't find a mundane explanation for this," Tremblay said.

Explore further: Elliptical galaxies: Chandra helps explain 'red and dead galaxies'

More information: "A thirty-kiloparsec chain of 'beads-on-a-string' star formation between two merging early type galaxies in the core of a strong-lensing galaxy cluster," arxiv.org/abs/1407.2251

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

For galaxies, having neighbors matters

Jun 10, 2014

Where galaxies live has an enormous effect on how they form stars, a puzzle that a new Canadian study is helping to solve. "To understand how galaxies evolve, we need to study the link between stars and gas, ...

Are ultra-luminous galaxies colliding?

Jun 27, 2014

(Phys.org) —ltra-luminous infrared galaxies ((ULIRGs) are galaxies whose luminosity exceeds that of a trillion suns, By way of comparison, our Milky Way galaxy has a typical modest luminosity of only about ...

XMM-Newton reveals cosmic collision in the Bullet Group

Jun 09, 2014

(Phys.org) —Despite the large distances between them, galaxies rarely exist in isolation. They are mostly found in large assemblies known as groups and clusters. Groups are the smallest gatherings, containing ...

Black hole makes 'String of Pearls' clusters

Apr 01, 2014

(Phys.org) —Huge young star clusters resembling a string of pearls around a black hole in the centre of a galaxy 120 million light-years away have been discovered by researchers at Swinburne University ...

Recommended for you

The hot blue stars of Messier 47

22 hours ago

Messier 47 is located approximately 1600 light-years from Earth, in the constellation of Puppis (the poop deck of the mythological ship Argo). It was first noticed some time before 1654 by Italian astronomer ...

Why is space black?

Dec 16, 2014

Imagine you're in space. Just the floating part, not the peeing into a vacuum hose or eating that funky "ice cream" from foil bags part. If you looked at the Sun, it would be bright and your retinas would ...

User comments : 235

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MrPressure
Jul 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
barakn
2.3 / 5 (15) Jul 10, 2014
By now you would think they've seen it all

No, I'm not nearly that stupid.
GuruShabu
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 10, 2014
This is another blow at the BBT...where "homogeneity and isotropy" are a must.
Uncle Ira
2.8 / 5 (18) Jul 10, 2014
This is another blow at the BBT...where "homogeneity and isotropy" are a must.


@ Gubu-Skippy, serious question from me. Why you say must? I could be wrong because it is true I get some things mixed up. But I thought that was only for the whole big pieces of the universe, but that rule do not apply on the smaller pieces or areas in the universe. I forget the exact words they used for it but it was in a big bang book I read, maybe I can find him so I can ask my question better.

If you don't understand what I am talking about that is not your fault, I don't know the words they used to explain it when I read it.
Shitead
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 10, 2014

The article fails to mention the red shift of the two merging galaxies or the red shift of the "pearls' joining them. Prediction: the red shift of the two types of objects will be different, which is of course, "impossible."
cantdrive85
3.5 / 5 (37) Jul 11, 2014
"Pearls on a string"?
"Twisted into a corkscrew shape that winds around the cores of two colliding galaxies."
""We've long known that the 'beads on a string' phenomenon is seen in the arms of spiral galaxies and in tidal bridges between interacting galaxies."
"these young, blue "super star clusters" are evenly spaced along the chain "
"You can't find a mundane explanation for this"

Except that plasma processes drive this action. The string of pearls analogy has been used by Plasma Cosmologists for decades.
Macksb
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 11, 2014
This is a helix, quantized. Spiral or corkscrew = helix. Evenly spaced at 3,000 light years = quantum spacing. This results from Art Winfree's law of coupled oscillators, which I have described and applied in many other Physorg posts.

The helix has a period. 360 degrees. The unit oscillators will divide that period equally.

Winfree's law circa 1967. Solid math. Many applications of the law to biology.

Unknown or ignored by physicists.

Credit to the authors for noticing and carefully describing the morphology.
Macksb
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 11, 2014
The "string of pearls" helix follows Winfree's law. The pearls are located at stable Winfree points. (Lagrangian points are a subset of Winfree points. E.g., L3, L4, L5 are 360 divided by 3.)

The reason new (blue) stars arise at these points, and not others, is because billions of smaller oscillating units have, in an earlier stage, self-organized at these points, also per Winfree's law. When sufficiently so organized, they collapse, because their oscillations pack much more efficiently, again per Winfree's law. A star emerges from such a collapse. Star clusters then emerge at that same point. That is why the clusters are all comprised of stars of similar (new) age, and why each point has a cluster.
maitriandkaruna
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2014
Yea! Glad this story was updated to indicate it was a spiral bridge. I was going to say that anyway, but here it is :-) All reality is "apparent" spiral motion. No "thing" exists without it. The same rules apply to all (or the ONE) of everything...
yyz
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 11, 2014
"The article fails to mention the red shift of the two merging galaxies or the red shift of the "pearls' joining them. Prediction: the red shift of the two types of objects will be different, which is of course, "impossible.""

Both the merging galaxies and the star clusters between them have the same spectroscopic redshift, z=0.3350. This measurement along with several other indicators led the investigators to conclude that all three objects are at the same distance.

Of the strongly lensed galaxies seen surrounding the two giant ellipticals, three different lensed systems were detected. One of lensed systems has a has a spectroscopic redshift of z=1.096 while the other two have photometrically derived redshifts of z>1.49.

The two giant ellipticals, with halos of 20 kpc each, are separated by only 7 kpc, center to center and are well on their way to final merger. Details of the observations can be found here:

http://fr.arxiv.o...407.2251

http://fr.arxiv.o...407.2266
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (12) Jul 11, 2014
Except that plasma processes drive this action
@CD
they say that in the article
This collision compresses the gas and creates a sheet of dense, cooling plasma
&
where gas cools from the ultra-hot (10 million degree) atmosphere of plasma that surrounds the galaxies
or did you miss that.
don't confuse the authors eloquence for ignorance on the scientists part.

Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 11, 2014
The two giant ellipticals, with halos of 20 kpc each, are separated by only 7 kpc, center to center and are well on their way to final merger. Details of the observations can be found here:

http://fr.arxiv.o...407.2251
@yyz
i see that certain people have given up trying to argue intelligently and instead decided to use sock-puppets:
rhsthjnty, tirahobis, pehawev, yefeb, bikuxem, retejap, xanuxul, debokolin, gipagajege, yejen, godivecu, befa, rovodeh, vudamezire, cuyajuyino, yolepugor, begalifowi, megayugo, juhodo, bibigak, fetem, sosamuca
and it appears that they all were created within minutes of each other, all around 4:46 on july 10.
interesting

I wonder WHO's sock puppets they are?

I guess anyone who even tries to promote any kind of logical mainstream science with a valid argument and proof will be downvoted to near zero, given what I am seeing... and it all seems to target certain individuals too.
Uncle Ira
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 11, 2014
@ Captain-Skippy. This article and the postums got me to thinking about a thing I read before but did not think about then, and I am not sure I am picturing it right in my head. Maybe you or the xyz-Skippy can help me.

So if I am looking in the telescope to see a thing or star or galaxy that 10 or 9 billion light years away, what I am seeing is what it looked like 10 or 9 billion years ago, not what it looks like today now, is that right? So then that means if some Skippy was out there where I'm looking, he'd see what here looked like 10 or 9 billion years ago not what we are doing today. Is that right?

Does that mean we can have a pretty good idea of what things were like 10 or 9 billions ago right here where we are now if out there is pretty much like over here? Or is that a stupid question with something I am overlooking?
Uncle Ira
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2014
rhsthjnty, tirahobis, pehawev, yefeb, bikuxem, retejap, xanuxul, debokolin, gipagajege, yejen, godivecu, befa, rovodeh, vudamezire, cuyajuyino, yolepugor, begalifowi, megayugo, juhodo, bibigak, fetem, sosamuca
and it appears that they all were created within minutes of each other, all around 4:46 on july 10.
interesting

I wonder WHO's sock puppets they are?



@ Captain-Skippy they are my fault. Yesterday I made a comment that they didn't like and all showed up together on the same bus to let me know they didn't like my comment. If you look over on the article about artificial space you will see what I mean. It was yesterday about 4 or 3 oclock central time.

@ xyz-Skippy sorry about all those Skippy(s) taking it out on you, they came here to be mad with me.
Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 12, 2014
@ xyz-Skippy sorry about all those Skippy(s) taking it out on you, they came here to be mad with me.
@IRA
that might be so... but it appears that they are not worried so much about empirical data as voting for specific people and downvoting specific people.
this trend is more likely that of an individual attempting revenge than anything else
if you will notice their trends thus far... certain people get high votes and certain people, especially ones that have attacked certain fringe pseudosciences in the past, low votes

this is cowardice, pure and simple. if someone cannot argue with logic and empirical data from legitimate sources, they shouldn't be here. so instead they abuse the system and downvote, etc.
they were all made within minutes of each other (another sign)
they all congregate around certain people

I suggest reporting it. Use the CONTACT link at the bottom of the page, and SITE PROBLEM as reason
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2014
So if I am looking in the telescope to see a thing or star or galaxy that 10 or 9 billion light years away, what I am seeing is what it looked like 10 or 9 billion years ago, not what it looks like today now, is that right?
@IRA
yes! absolutely
So then that means if some Skippy was out there where I'm looking, he'd see
whatever was here 9 billion or so light years AGO (if we are still talking about the same distance)
Does that mean we can have a pretty good idea of what things were like 10 or 9 billions ago right here where we are now if out there is pretty much like over here?
pretty much!
the laws of physics don't change over time and space, that we have found, so looking at the stars 9bil yrs ago is like watching the past, but VERY relevant to the present and what is going on today.
You are pretty much correct. I can't see anything wrong with that logic.

Do you see anything wrong YYZ?
otero
Jul 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2014
certain people get high votes and certain people, especially ones that have attacked certain fringe pseudosciences in the past, low votes

The fact of the matter is certain poster stalkers seem to always be just a few minutes behind other posters ready with the downvotes. Maybe we can let these sockpuppets know where all my posts are so my average rating can get out of the one point whatever range.
https://sciencex....5/?v=act
Then again I could give a rat's ass what my "popularity" is in these threads, unlike others who obviously think the voting system matters.
Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2014
unlike others who obviously think the voting system matters.
@cd
that would be Zephir
they're HIS sock puppets, created with Slovenian names so he can post what he believes is "legitimate" and get the up-votes, while using TOR to get around the IP ban.
unfortunately, he forgot that now any TOR user who submits to the network can now lay a trap/trace on his profile using his KNOWN profiles here (and a cookie), hack his system and either shut him down completely or do something more nefarious:
if he complains about having the state after him for terrorism and links to al qaeda, you will know that I had enough :-)
seem to always be just a few minutes behind other posters
it couldn't be someone in YOUR time zone (or even area) with the same interests, could it? no, that would be impossible! on the internet too!

just use real physics and legit sites
it will improve your arguments

cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2014
No, I don't think so. It's not Zeph's M.O. I think he nailed it in the other thread, that has simpleton stalker troll written all over it. Whether it's the Zeph fan or your own creation, such as vietvet, captain whatever, or various other sockpuppets you have created is the real question.
The voting system is obviously important to those trolls who regularly do so, although I occasionally vote I tend to only vote on pertinent or particularly stupid posts such as yours.
otero
Jul 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2014
No, I don't think so. It's not Zeph's M.O.
@cd
really? you can't be serious?
this is the silliest thing you've said since being on PO! really!
every time he gets banned, he creates a minimum of TWO profiles
The voting system is obviously important to those trolls who regularly do so
not the issue. the issue is actually the attempt to establish credibility through voting with your own proflies and doing the right thing (especially concerning legitimate science)
which zeph used the profiles in an attempt to legitimize his pseudoscience
and its wrong... for here and for peer review, etc
it's kinda like these people here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

the only thing different between the idiots in that "ring" and zephir?
the names

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (18) Jul 12, 2014
Hi CaptnS. :)
it's kinda like these people here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Which is why I have been warning you not to just 'accept'/link as 'proof' something based on 'source' and/or 'authority' just because it has allegedly 'passed peer review'. :)

Remember me warning that literature has 'built-in cascade' of flaws? And that much prior 'peer-review-passed' flawed 'science' is cited/depended-on later for 'working assumptions' etc and become starting premises for later flawed 'interpretations/treatments' by others?

And that 'undetected iceberg' of prior 'peer-review-passed' flaws in 'established science' literature still being cited as 'supporting evidence' and 'basis' for unsound 'mainstream work/papers' (eg, BICEP2 fiasco!)?

only thing different between idiots in that "ring"...? the names.
Yep. That's 'tip of iceberg' belatedly detected. But 'hidden bulk' of that cascade-of-flaws 'iceberg' remains intact!

Be warned. Do better. bye:)
Captain Stumpy
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2014
not to just 'accept'/link as 'proof' something based on 'source' and/or 'authority' just because it has allegedly 'passed peer review'
@rc
so instead I should just accept ANY link, post or pseudoscience crackpot theory that comes in? RIGHT! not gonna happen.
I don't always accept the info in a paper, BUT, the peer review process is FAR better than arbitrary acceptance like you propose. You can keep your process and your beliefs...
and hey! why aren't you posting this on Sciforums.com??
Be warned. Do better.
I wouls HIGHLY suggest this of you.

just because you CAN post, doesn't mean you SHOULD

I replied for the last time to you on sciforums unless I debunk your crap... but since you seldom post science, I dont have to worry.

why are you suddenly trolling here? get banned again? :-)

you believe that anything peer reviewed is bad? are you starting to become a tin-foil hat wearing conspiratorial psycho?
let me know, I can add you to my special list.
RealityCheck
2.4 / 5 (20) Jul 12, 2014
Well, well, Captain Stumpy. So much for your recent comments on sockpuppets and downrating tactics. :)

You and your downrating-bot-operator sockpuppeteer "Uncle Ira" took just a couple of minutes to downrate me WITHOUT even addressing, refuting or even denying the veracity of what I just pointed out in my post above.

You 'friend' and in every way encourage a known and banned-elsewhere ratings-sabotaging bot-operator...then you complain when some victims try on the same tactics against you and your sockpuppet bot-operating 'friend'?

You sh!tehead hypocrite and liar! You weaselly criminal-encouraging and duplicitous science-discourse-sabotaging 'personality-cult' TROLL are a dismal and egregious disgrace to both scientific integrity AND to your (professed Fireman profession's) uniform.

Your hypocritical lack of honor and honesty; and your trolling/bot-based-downrating tactics and agenda, are symptomatic of what depths dumb 'mainstream science' PRETENDERS will stoop to for EGO. Bah!
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2014
You sh!tehead hypocrite and liar! You weaselly criminal-encouraging and duplicitous science-discourse-sabotaging 'personality-cult' TROLL are a dismal and egregious disgrace to both scientific integrity AND to your (professed Fireman profession's) uniform.
@rc
aww... i think i am gonna cry
Remember me warning that literature has 'built-in cascade' of flaws
when you offer comments about something wrong, but refuse to specify, your comment is TROLLING and without merit, and means as much as any other troll.

thats why you attacked so viciously above.
you KNOW I am correct.

comment with no proof? comment that says nothing? same as NO COMMENT

TROLL

guess you are mad about being banned on sciforums! LMFAO
g'night RC undefined troll!
sleep well with your knowledge that you are systematically being eradicated from any forums that require logic, intelligence and proof!
ToE bad you don't post relevant data!
Kieseyhow
5 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2014
Ahh the drama, and appendage waving. Amusing indeed.

Gentlemen, could we stick to the topic and articles at hand, if you don't mind...

I find all these "discovery" articles quite interesting. I am wondering how much of it goes into updating the colloquial theories of the origins of the universe that most seem to blindly accept as fact. Science is not really about facts, it is the pursuit of facts, through theory, practise, and experimentation, followed by demonstration. Along the way, many interesting and sometimes amusing theories, beliefs, and religions seem to crop up, like algae blooms or brush fires.

These star formations and distant views into the past, are amazing for creating new algorithms and modelling scenarios for the banks of super-computers at various institutions about the globe. I like to appreciate how this applies to the current views and theories applied against the evolution of the latest scientific religion du jour.

RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (18) Jul 12, 2014
@Cap S.
@rc
so instead I should just accept ANY link, post or pseudoscience crackpot theory that comes in?
No, you dumbs!te headed troll. Stop twisting to save face!

I say do EQUALLY OBJECTIVE due diligence on ALL 'offers' IRRESPECTIVE of source/authority/person.

How biased/hypocritical, if you can't apply scientific scrutiny EQUALLY, without prior prejudicial/preferential biasses like you and others demonstrated when crowing to the 'cranks' over the "BICEP2 'results' as 'proof' etc of BBang confirmation-biased 'beliefs'...now shown OBVIOUSLY FLAWED.

why are you suddenly trolling here? get banned again?
:-)Mod-trolls in control there embarrassed when I pointed to their own BICEP2 'results' gullibility and lack of proper due diligence...so they (again) blatantly colluded in 'bait-and-ban' tactic. Predictable. :)

you believe that anything peer reviewed is bad?
No. Stop 'twisting', dimwit troll. I say check everything objectively. How long before it sinks in?
Uncle Ira
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2014
"Uncle Ira" took just a couple of minutes to downrate me


Did not take me a couple minutes Skippy. Non. It only took about the 4 or 3 seconds.

Why you not just leave me alone like I been doing for you? You got to be the most bat doo doo angry crazy as any man I never did see. Have you ever been anywhere on the interweb that you don't make the misere for everybody?

Here I have been trying to be the new nice Ira and you got to try to drag me into your boo hooing about the world treating you bad. Grow up Cher you make the fool of your self.
Captain Stumpy
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 12, 2014
I am wondering how much of it goes into updating the colloquial theories of the origins of the universe that most seem to blindly accept as fact
@Kieseyhow
well, I am trying an auto-function that deals with RC... coded in a different browser... sorry about the "hand waving"
I would like you to clarify something... the above comment. especially the
the colloquial theories of the origins of the universe that most seem to blindly accept as fact
part
what about the modern theories which are supported by physics do you not like?
It almost appears that you have a problem with modern theories and you assume that modern scientists are acting almost religions in their pursuits?

slipped on the vote, too
Did not take me a couple minutes Skippy.
@Ira
Hey, Ira... just ignore the poor troll, let him go away with his ToE and cry.
since he won't ToE the line
ToE be as trollish as him is a curse... let him live it alone!
all he wants is attention.
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (18) Jul 12, 2014
You sh!tehead hypocrite and liar! You weaselly criminal-encouraging and duplicitous science-discourse-sabotaging 'personality-cult' TROLL are a dismal and egregious disgrace to both scientific integrity AND to your (professed Fireman profession's) uniform.
@rc
aww... i think i am gonna cry
The forum notes you couldn't deny any of it. So 'crying' is all you got left? Try apologizing to mainstream scientists and fellow Firemen, and do better honestly/objectively in future. Else, shame on you.

guess you are mad about being banned on sciforums! LMFAO
The mod-trolls in control there were embarrassed when I pointed out their own 'objectivity' failures/gullibility re BICEP2 'results/claims' now proven flawed! So they colluded in 'bait-and-ban' tactic, as usual. It was scientifically predictable based on their past abuses! :)

...you are systematically being eradicated...
Shades of Nazi/Commie censorship, bookburning, killing? Nice, you sh!theaded disgrace to all.
Uncle Ira
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2014
Ahh the drama, and appendage waving. Amusing indeed.

Gentlemen, could we stick to the topic and articles at hand, if you don't mind...


I give you the apology for me Kiesey-Skippy. That couyon Really-Skippy he bring out the worst part of me. You are right and I am sorry for my disrupting me.

RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (18) Jul 12, 2014
Poor Captn S. troll.
@Kieseyhow
well, I am trying an auto-function that deals with RC... coded in a different browser... sorry about the "hand waving"
I would like you to clarify something... the above comment. especially the
the colloquial theories of the origins of the universe that most seem to blindly accept as fact
part
what about the modern theories which are supported by physics do you not like?
It almost appears that you have a problem with modern theories and you assume that modern scientists are acting almost religions in their pursuits?
How about reminding yourself of what I just pointed out to you above, about 'passed peer review' cascade of flawed assumptions/conclusions then being built into later GIGO 'work/claims' (like in latest BICEP2 fiasco)? That should answer you, but you 'in denial', hey, Cap'n Sh!teheaded twister?

slipped on the vote, too
And you complain of downrating from socks? And you STILL 'friend' Uncle Ira ratings-bot-sock? Moron.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2014
Shades of Nazi/Commie censorship, bookburning, killing? Nice, you sh!theaded disgrace to all.


@ RealityCheck, oh no. Not again. Why do ya keep going back to let them abuse ya so?

http://www.scifor...list.php
RealityCheck
2.4 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2014
Hello again, Q-S. How's the 'socks' and 'bots' business going? :)

Shades of Nazi/Commie censorship, bookburning, killing? Nice, you sh!theaded disgrace to all.


@ RealityCheck, oh no. Not again. Why do ya keep going back to let them abuse ya so?

http://www.scifor...list.php

If you were actually objectively reading and doing proper due diligence, you would have seen this in answer to the Captain Stumpy troll's attempt at 'twisting the facts'.

Here was my answer to that dummy, and now to you....

The mod-trolls in control there were embarrassed when I pointed out their own 'objectivity' failures/gullibility re BICEP2 'results/claims' now proven flawed! So they colluded in 'bait-and-ban' tactic, as usual. It was scientifically predictable based on their past abuses! :)


So, Q-S, what do you say about the Uncle Ira bot-operation; and Captn S working on his own automated 'personality cult' internet-bot to sabotage posters/discussions? You like?
Uncle Ira
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 12, 2014
@ Q-Skippy, don't mind him personal no. When he writes the postum like to you it means you are on to something he don't want you to know about him.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (18) Jul 12, 2014
Wow! An automated-downrating-bot operating sock tells one of his fellow troll-sock gang of poster/discussion sabotagers "not to worry" about being exposed and just "ignore" those who have exposed them?

Talk about incestuous circle of bot-on-bot internet-interaction farce!

Forum: How low does this site have to go, allowing such blatantly obvious Captn S, Uncle Ira et al 'automated' internet site saboteurs, before waking up and doing something about them?

What an 'advertisement' for mainstream science and scientists they are! With 'defenders' like those frauds and bots being allowed to pretend to be 'mainstream science spokespersons', who needs the religious/anti-science types at all to destroy the reputation of the science and scientists they profess to 'speak' for when engaged in such patently anti-science-ethics activities.

Phys.Org, get rid of them asap, before your site is totally ruined by them!

Don't say you haven't been made aware of their 'automated' anti-science crap. :)
someone11235813
not rated yet Jul 13, 2014
It's analogous to the process that causes a falling column of water to disrupt, explaining why rain falls in drops rather than in continuous filaments from clouds. Water coming out of the kitchen tap eventually breaks into a series of droplets, and a very similar process is happening in SDSS J1531+3414. "We see the same physics on 100,000-light-year scales that we see in our kitchen sinks and inkjet printers," said Tremblay.


Acceleration due to constant gravitational force, let's not get overly excited about it.
Macksb
1 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2014
Continuing with my posts high above, at positions 5 and 6, merging galaxies align their spins. This phenomenon, recently discovered though unpredicted by physicists, is predicted by Art Winfree's law of coupled oscillators. Aligned spins = coupled oscillations (Winfree's term). Spins are one type of periodic oscillation, and periodic oscillations are the stuff to which Art's law applies.

Here, the two merging galaxies have identical shapes. That's important. And the shape is elliptical, not spiral. That's important.

For a loosely analogous example in which aligned spins (nuclear and electron) produce a quantized helix, see "Helical Electron and Nuclear Spin Order in Quantum Wires," Physorg Feb 11, 2014.
Macksb
1 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2014
When two galaxies merge, in a dance that aligns their spins, they are connected in a helical manner. The helix is not visible, but it is there, as evidenced by the spiral bridge described in this article. The connecting force, helical in form, must be extraordinarily powerful, because it extends across unimaginable distances in space.

Such a powerful force will have consequences.

As to star formation (see my second post high above, at position 6 high above), the gigantic spiral bridge force might, for example, align nuclear spins and electron spins in a fashion akin to that described in the Feb 11, 2014 article "Helical Electron and Nuclear Spin Order..." To which I refer in my third post, immediately above. In other words, the gigantic Winfree order (spiral bridge) may drive Winfree order (spins of electrons and nuclei) at the micro level.

Such Winfree order at the micro level, coupling electrons and nuclei, would produce stars.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (9) Jul 13, 2014
BICEP2 'results/claims' now proven flawed


Except they haven't. There is one reanalysis claiming the original paper is wrong, that does not mean it is correct. There is no objective proof the BICEP result is wrong, yet. That won't be clear until Planck can confirm or refute.

You preach objectivity but you don't practice it. BICEP was never proof of the big bang, it was a test of inflation, a very specific big bang.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2014
An automated-downrating-bot operating sock tells one of his fellow troll-sock gang of poster/discussion sabotagers "not to worry" about being exposed and just "ignore" those who have exposed them?

Talk about incestuous circle of bot-on-bot internet-interaction farce!

Forum: How low does this site have to go, allowing such blatantly obvious Captn S, Uncle Ira et al 'automated' internet site saboteurs, before waking up and doing something about them?

What an 'advertisement' for mainstream science and scientists they are! With 'defenders' like those frauds and bots being allowed to pretend to be 'mainstream science spokespersons', who needs the religious/anti-science types at all to destroy the reputation of the science and scientists they profess to 'speak' for when engaged in such patently anti-science-ethics activities.


They are all "phishers". Their posts often contain links to other sites to "phish" for personal data, don't even click on the links in their posts.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2014
Hi IMP-9. :)
BICEP2 'results/claims' now proven flawed


Except they haven't. There is one reanalysis claiming the original paper is wrong, that does not mean it is correct. There is no objective proof the BICEP result is wrong, yet. That won't be clear until Planck can confirm or refute.

You preach objectivity but you don't practice it. BICEP was never proof of the big bang, it was a test of inflation, a very specific big bang.

I've always been scrupulously objective regardless of which 'side' of an issue the content comes from for my strictly independent observer assessment. Unlike some.

Splitting hairs re BICEP2 is leading you to be less than objective. Their announcements, paper CLAIMED that their 'work/results' confirmed certain BBang-dependent/related hypotheses. It was immediately obvious to me that, as presented then, their 'work' had many in-built flaws; hence 'confirmed' nothing but 'publish-or-perish' BS to 'beat rivals at all costs' to objective science.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2014
Hi Dr_toad. :) I see by your downrating-from-personal-not-objective-reasons, that you are still 'running with the automated-bot-downrater' gang headed by that manipulating scumbag "Uncle Ira". Either you are one and the same or one of his discussions-sabotaging 'socks' group of mod-trolls still infesting the internet forums.

It's obvious. Because you can't deny my observations were 100% on the nail, yet you rate me '1' from personal pique and subjective egotistical motives having no regard at all for the objectivity so necessary for real scientist/science.

If you can't bring yourself to put aside your ego/arrogance even for the sake of real science objectivity in this instance, then what sort of 'scientist' are you? Not worth the time it takes to read/see your anti-science antics as part of that 'automated idiocy' group manipulated by that ludicrously transparent and incompetent "Uncle Ira" and his complicit-idiots trolling gang.

Your antics undermines mainstreamer credibility. :(
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2014
you can't deny my observations were 100% on the nail
there were no observations made and shared to make an objective decision about. Your claims were unsubstantiated until after public physicists posts started coming from other quarters
and even then BICEP2 has yet to be discredited or proven wrong, as IMP points out
what sort of 'scientist' are you?
I can't say anything about the DR, but no one can read minds, so your post is fallacious from the start.
anyone who wishes can re-read for themselves: http://phys.org/n...nal.html
you never ONCE validate your accusations

poor RC-TROLL bot banned from sciforums AGAIN... now angry here
can't convince the moderators or use REAL science (or logic)
how long you banned for this time RC AKA "Undefined"?
http://www.scifor...list.php
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2014
And let's not forget that simpleton-of-simpletons troll, Captain Stumpy, who just rated me '1'.

Has there ever been a more weakminded gullible type as this Captain Stupid? Either that, or "Uncle Ira" is his 'sock-bot'. Which would explain his on-going 'friending' and 'mutual-goosing' '5's to each other while they carry on with their manipulative 'personality cult' inanities in mock-conversation 'between them'.

Oh dear, how silly has the human race become when it is easy prey to such as these trolls on the net?

Science has more to fear from their undermining mainstream credibility through their anti-science antics than from any 'crank' imaginable. Maybe that's their agenda? To make 'science mainstream' sound like a bunch of self-serving duplicitous idiots gang?

It's succeeding! With 'friends' like you troll-dicks, science/scientists don't need any 'enemies' to undermine their credibility. Keep it up, moron; keep pretending you are 'defending science' while you troll mindlessly. :(
Dr_toad
Jul 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2014
Hi Dr_toad. :)
So everyone that disagrees with your judgmental trash is a troll. Remarkably simple system. How many like-minded friends do you have, and why aren't they here defending you?
So, you still can't bring yourself to face the fact that I was 100% correct and you were 'taken in' by the BICEP2 'publish or perish' claims. Some 'objective' mind you have there, 'scientist'. :)

And precisely what is it about "I am strictly objective and scrupulously independent lone observer/researcher" that you don't get? :)

I don't need/use 'friends' or 'personalities' to 'defend' me. It is objective science, not social-media friending that counts in reality. Apparently your 'personality cult' way of 'doing science discourse' is what makes you so egotistically-invested in 'the popular source' rather than the 'objective content'.

Some 'scientist' you are, hey; when 'friends' are more germain than impartial objectivity at all costs! Do better, toad. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2014
Poor Captain-of-the-Stupids Troll.
you can't deny my observations were 100% on the nail
there were no observations made and shared to make an objective decision about. Your claims were unsubstantiated until after public physicists posts started coming from other quarters
and even then BICEP2 has yet to be discredited or proven wrong, as IMP points out
what sort of 'scientist' are you?
I can't say anything about the DR, but no one can read minds, so your post is fallacious from the start.
anyone who wishes can re-read for themselves: http://phys.org/n...nal.html

You can't stand it or admit it that I was right; that you zealously-stupid trolls were 'taken in' by those obvious (to me) BICEP2 'publish or perish' BS 'work' and claims, can you?

Well, neither could the mod-trolls over at sciforums; which is why they colluded in 'bait and ban' tactics!

Such lame idiotic futile tactics/abuse of mod position undermines mainstream credibility. :(
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2014
I was right; that you zealously-stupid trolls were 'taken in' by those obvious (to me) BICEP2 'publish or perish' BS 'work' and claims
and again, see: http://phys.org/n...nal.html
you made unsubstantiated claims that you never justified. You made accusations that are completely unsubstantiated.
You made a claim that you saw something wrong, but never gave PROOF of seeing anything at all, therefore your claim has about the same veracity as a claim that Fairies are real... and this is cogent because, like people who claim fairies are real, you have offered ZERO proof
Well, neither could the mod-trolls over at sciforums
the Mods saw thru your act and could see that your claims were unsubstantiated, therefore you got BANNED again http://www.scifor...list.php

you have a habit of pushing your shortcomings off onto others like above with the DR... so you are a liar, a fake, and TROLLING spammer... we already know it
THAT'S WHY YOU'RE BANNED :-)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2014
Well, forum, it's quite obvious that the 'Dumb&Dumber troll-bot twins' can't deny I was 100% correct. So they default to downrating-by-bot to alleviate their frustration that their manipulative tactics and plain stupidity has not had the results they were hoping for!

Come on, forum, show them you are not to be treated like dumbass-stooges to be manipulated by crass anti-science tactics like bot-rating irrespective of content or making their'personality cult' the basis for accepting/rejecting any content.

Condemn "uncle Ira' et al's tactics, or be complicit by your silence. There is no 'on the fence' position on this one, if science and objective discourse is to flourish here and elsewhere on the net.

Be brave. Be objective. Be a REAL scientist and not such unscientific no-hopers as Uncle Ira et al trolls.

Good luck and good thinking, forum! :)

Dr_toad
Jul 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
3.6 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2014
Well, forum, it's quite obvious that the 'Dumb&Dumber troll-bot twins' can't deny I was 100% correct. So they default to downrating-by-bot to alleviate their frustration that their manipulative tactics and plain stupidity has not had the results they were hoping for!

Come on, forum, show them you are not to be treated like dumbass-stooges to be manipulated by crass anti-science tactics like bot-rating irrespective of content or making their'personality cult' the basis for accepting/rejecting any content.

Condemn "uncle Ira' et al's tactics, or be complicit by your silence. There is no 'on the fence' position on this one, if science and objective discourse is to flourish here and elsewhere on the net.

Be brave. Be objective. Be a REAL scientist and not such unscientific no-hopers as Uncle Ira et al trolls.

Good luck and good thinking, forum! :)



Seems like all you want to talk about is about how ol Ira votes. If you want to talk about the science why you not do that?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2014
Poor Captain Stooge.
I was right; that you zealously-stupid trolls were 'taken in' by those obvious (to me) BICEP2 'publish or perish' BS 'work' and claims
and again, see: http://phys.org/n...nal.html

you have a habit of pushing your shortcomings off onto others like above with the DR... so you are a liar, a fake, and TROLLING spammer... we already know it
THAT'S WHY YOU'RE BANNED :-)


How many times? I told you I was withdrawing from discussions to work on my ToE and to avoid risk of 'palgiarism' and getting into futile exchanges with 'timewasting trolls' like you et al.

I suggested to do your OWN due diligence; because I could see many flaws in that BICEP2 'work' paper/claims.

I tried to leave it at that; but YOU got 'all emotional' and TROLLED lies and innuendoes about me RATHER than actually go check for the flaws YOURSELF to see if I was right to warn you not to accept their claims blindly just because they 'mainstream source'. Fool.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2014
So, you still can't bring yourself to face the fact that I was 100% correct and you were 'taken in' by the BICEP2 'publish or perish' claims.


Did you pull that out of your ass or just forgot your anti-psychotics? I never made any statement one way or the other to you or about you concerning BICEP2.


By your silence, even AFTER I HAD suggested proper due diligence from EVERYONE before believing that (to my objective mind) obviously flawed BICEP2 work/claim, then you tacitly admit acceptance of that BICEP2. You can't have it both ways.

Anyways, now that you mention it, what DID you think of that BICEP2 'work/claims' at the time as presented then? Did you also find the flaws I alluded to?...and which mainstreamers have already found as well (although they have still missed some flaws which I saw above and beyond what mainstream has mentioned so far).

If you're going to attack the messenger, then you should be prepared to wear the 'splashback' of mud. Do better. :)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2014
I told you I was withdrawing from discussions to work on my ToE and to avoid risk of 'palgiarism' and getting into futile exchanges
and again, I refer you to http://phys.org/n...nal.html which, by the way proves you 100% wrong.
it shows that, though you CLAIM withdrawing from discussion... you had PLENTY of time to argue and SAY you were withdrawing, etc, and blah blah blah, but in all that time you could not produce even ONE scrap of evidence, or even a substantiating comment as to WHY you felt something was wrong, therefore, your comment
can't deny I was 100% correct
is proven wrong BY YOUR OWN WORDS
I could see many flaws in that BICEP2 'work' paper/claims
and you could not produce proof of even ONE claim, as PROVEN in the link, BY YOUR OWN WORDS... HAHA
THIS is why you got BANNED here: http://www.scifor...list.php
unsubstantiated claims, flame wars, TROLLING
I LOVE it when you prove yourself an IDIOT publicly here!
THANKS
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2014
Poor Captain Useless.
I told you I was withdrawing from discussions to work on my ToE and to avoid risk of 'palgiarism' and getting into futile exchanges
and again, I refer you to http://phys.org/n...nal.html
unsubstantiated claims, flame wars, TROLLING
I LOVE it when you prove yourself an IDIOT publicly here!
THANKS

What planet do you live on, idiot. Read the record properly, not with your confirmation bias troll dick leading you. Moron and anti-science-bot-operator enabling FOOL.

I was banned for 'baiting/flaming', you idiot. As a consequence of me defending against the obvious mod-troll 'bait and ban' tactics colluded in so as to ban me when defending.

Go get a real brain and a real life and some real integrity and then come back, worse-than-useless FOOL.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2014
Be brave. Be objective. Be a REAL scientist
We are... it is YOU who is being the anti-science TROLL- HA
I HAD suggested proper due diligence from EVERYONE before believing that (to my objective mind) obviously flawed BICEP2 work/claim
you DID make a claim, but then you failed to produce even ONE piece of evidence, as proven HERE: http://phys.org/n...nal.html
this is visible to ANYONE who looks/reads it
TROLLED lies and innuendoes about me RATHER than actually go check for the flaws YOURSELF
it aint a lie if I prove it true, which I DID in the link above
it was also proven HERE: http://www.scifor...list.php
you do the same thing everywhere you go. Troll, Lie, Flame, incite flame wars, spam, and troll more... then you get banned like I showed above.

and anyone reading those links will see that YOU prove ME right! with your lack of evidence and your continued trolling here...

BYE BYE TROLL
sciforums says GOOD RIDDANCE
Dr_toad
Jul 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2014
What planet do you live on, idiot
Earth... wish you were here!
Read the record properly
I did, and so can everyone else! http://phys.org/n...nal.html
pretty much come to the same conclusions... you lied, you made accusations, you could not prove your lie or accusations (PROVEN IN THE LINK ABOVE)
then you go to crying/lying saying we're attacking the messenger, like you always do
if we had MODS, you would be BANNED like you were here: http://www.scifor...list.php

I know it makes you angry, because you start cussing me, like above! It makes you angry because YOU and EVERYONE ELSE CAN SEE THAT I AM RIGHT!
better yet, YOUR OWN WORDS PROVE ME RIGHT!
and that is the funniest thing about your continued post here!

ENJOY< RC TROLL
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2014
Poor Captain FOOL.

You seem more impressed/swayed by mod-troll abuses of power than by the obvious and objective facts of the matter. Where have you been living all your life? Certainly not in the objectively real world. Maybe your 'friending' trolls and other abusers of position is useful to get you 'protected troll' status, but it has no value whenever objective science discourse is at stake.

What makes you think that I, who have already commenced WITHDRAWING from internet forum posting in order to concentrate on more important things (than your 'automated-trolling-stupidities-in-lieu-of-objectivity' scam), would now care a damn what mod-troll-run forums do from now on, you 'emotional' elf-righteous 'mainstream pretender'?

Anyone who falls for your idiocy is as much a GULLIBLE FOOL as you are. Good luck with that, Captain Troll-Sh!te and 'friend' Uncle Ira bot-operating scammer. :)

Forum beware. Good luck and good thinking, everyone! Bye for now. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2014
OK, here is the funniest thing of all, for someone who claims
"I am strictly objective and scrupulously independent lone observer/researcher"
above, he then really tries hard to get everyone to LIKE him by doing stuff like this
Cap'n Sh!tehead
Just how fucking insensible or dishonest can a troll like you be
most insensible moron of the century
Can't you read anything
acting like 'religious types' when mouthing their opinions without actually understanding what they are 'believing in'
bot-operating criminal sympathizer
as 'cover' for their own egoistic/criminal activities across the net
Anyone who fails to condemn such AUTOMATED trolling/sabotaging is complicit in internet fraud
Come on, forum, show them you are not to be treated like dumbass-stooges to be manipulated by crass anti-science tactics
found above and here: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
it worked, they're not taken in!
they downvote YOU, dont they?
supamark23
5 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2014
RealityCheck - I just downvoted a bunch of your ranting posts because you're an a-hole, and even worse an a-hole with a very poor grasp of the concepts of basic science.

Ta-da!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2014
who have already commenced WITHDRAWING from internet forum posting in order to concentrate on more important things
you say this an awful lot for someone who spends so much time posting to internet forums, like here and also sciforums (where you are known as "Undefined" as well as RealityCheck) here http://www.scifor...list.php
why keep posting if you are withdrawing? because you want someone to like you... and you think all the negative attention is worth it... ANY attention is worth it. this is the sign of a lonely old person emasculated in life and in reality by wife (or blow up doll), friends, work mates and more.
why not just try to learn some REAL science, and post ACTUAL proof of comments? you made a derogatory comment here: http://phys.org/n...nal.html and said there was problems with BICEP2 but you never could say WHAT... you never proved ANYTHING... which proves ME 100% CORRECT
and this is why you get BANNED

BYE BYE TROLL
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2014
What makes you think that I, who have already commenced WITHDRAWING from internet forum posting in order to concentrate on more important things


Cher they don't seem to be as important as ol Ira's voting

would now care a damn what mod-troll-run forums do from now on, you 'emotional' elf-righteous 'mainstream pretender'?


Yeah Skippy why would anybody get that silly idea that you care? That's how we know there ain't one objective scientist type Skippy in the whole bunch, thinking that Really-Skippy would care about troll-mod-bot-messengers-criminal-mafias on forums do. I mean it's as plain as day you don't care a damn what they do.

I got to help help the Skipper-Skippy stay out the mud, so I'll be a little late with those things you don't care about. But as long as you don't care maybe you won't mind if it takes me about 45 or 30 minutes to get back to my voting button. Okayeeei with you Cher?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2014
one last parting shot

What makes you think that I, who have already commenced WITHDRAWING from internet forum posting in order to concentrate on more important things (than your 'automated-trolling-stupidities-in-lieu-of-objectivity' scam), would now care a damn what mod-troll-run forums do from now on, you 'emotional' elf-righteous 'mainstream pretender'?
if it truly means nothing, and it doesn't bother you... why cuss me, why LIE
why post the above diatribe?

WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO CONVINCE? YOU OR ME?
LMFAO

IF you truly did not "give a damn" then you wouldn't call me
Cap'n Sh!tehead
or
Captain FOOL
or any of the rest of the comments you made!

I laugh at you. impotent and incapable of even convincing a fair MOD that you are not a troll!
that is why you post here!

so you can post your diatribe and go all stupid on soliloquy's from h*ll...

until the MODS catch up to you, like here: http://www.scifor...list.php
keep trying to convince yourself! might work!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2014
Hi Dr_toad. :)

By my silence? You are a complete fool. I'm not required to give you any opinion.

Except you are all too ready to give your opinion when attacking the messenger now.

Now come on, toad, let's have no more rationalizations and cop-outs and hair-splitting from you. Please be so kind and so honest as to answer this question I put to you earlier...

what DID you think of that BICEP2 'work/claims' at the time as presented then? Did you also find the flaws I alluded to?...and which mainstreamers have already found as well (although they have still missed some flaws which I saw above and beyond what mainstream has mentioned so far).


Come on, be a brave and honest 'toad', and just admit you were taken in because of the 'mainstream source' of that 'work/claims' as presented at the time. Go on, get it off your no doubt big strong toad chest. You'll feel better for being honest and not evading the point anymore. Good luck. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2014
OK, here is the funniest thing of all,...., he then really tries hard to get everyone to LIKE him by doing stuff like this
Cap'n Sh!tehead
Just how fucking insensible or dishonest can a troll like you be
most insensible moron of the century
Can't you read anything
acting like 'religious types' when mouthing their opinions without actually understanding what they are 'believing in'
bot-operating criminal sympathizer
as 'cover' for their own egoistic/criminal activities across the net
Anyone who fails to condemn such AUTOMATED trolling/sabotaging is complicit in internet fraud
Come on, forum, show them you are not to be treated like dumbass-stooges to be manipulated by crass anti-science tactics
found above and here: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
it worked, they're not taken in!
they downvote YOU, dont they?
What's downvoting by TROLLS signify?

I'm not interested in being 'liked', only exposing trolls. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2014
Hi Supamark23. :)

RealityCheck - I just downvoted a bunch of your ranting posts because you're an a-hole, and even worse an a-hole with a very poor grasp of the concepts of basic science.

Ta-da!
Mate, you suffer from ego and mainstream-believer blindness which is way worse than any 'crank' can ever be; because such blind faith in 'mainstream sources' leads to 'herd mentality' confirmation biased 'work/claims' such as the latest BICEP2 fiasco.

When such as you who profess to 'know basic concepts, but still get so easily 'taken in' by the (obvious to me) BICEP2 'work/claims' just because they issue from 'mainstream source', then I humbly submit that I have demonstrated way more objective comprehensive grasp than you. This 'inconvenient fact' will become even more evident when my ToE is published complete and consistent with all reality as observed objectively. :)

Do and think better and more objectively, mark. You don't 'know' as much as you think you 'know'. Learn more.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2014
It was immediately obvious to me that, as presented then, their 'work' had many in-built flaws; hence 'confirmed' nothing but 'publish-or-perish' BS to 'beat rivals at all costs' to objective science.


Nope. You're saying absolutely nothing. You claimed it was proven wrong, where is the proof? What are these flaws? We've all heard about where they got the Planck data from but they accounted for the fact it was scraped in their error calculations and it was only one of a few dust models. This is far short of proof it is wrong.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2014
I'll say it again, be very careful about clicking on links posted by Stumpy & Ira, these guys are phishing for personal data through those links. You don't even need to login into sites they often link to in their posts. Just be aware many phishing techniques only involve collecting information about the device you are using & through a series of extrapolation algorithms these phishers can find out who you really are, and more, passwords you use, etc.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2014
I'll say it again, be very careful about clicking on links posted by Stumpy & Ira, these guys are phishing for personal data through those links. You don't even need to login into sites they often link to in their posts. Just be aware many phishing techniques only involve collecting information about the device you are using & through a series of extrapolation algorithms these phishers can find out who you really are, and more, passwords you use, etc.


I do not ever post any links Bennie-Skippy. But in case I do I will take your advisement and I will not click him no. I am not sure I even know how to put the link thing into the postum that's why you have never seen one from me.

I did click the Captain-Skippy's link things though. They don't go nowhere but to the physorg old other articles, and the another that goes to the place to show where Really-Skippy got banned for being a flaming bait troll or something like that.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2014
be very careful about clicking on links posted by Stumpy & Ira, these guys are phishing for personal data through those links
@beni-haha
for a NOOclear engineer you know SQUAT about computers... in case you hadn't checked... some of those links above are to HERE... THIS SITE... so... unless you want to leave Phys.org forever, your idiocy has just painted yourself into ANOTHER corner
involve collecting information about the device you are using
very true, BUT phishing is normally done thru e-mail also https://en.wikipe...Phishing
My links here are normally spelled out so that you can SEE where you are going... not like ZEPHIR, who imbeds links, which the forum says not to do, BTW
and I don't because it is hard for some people who are computer illiterate to comprehend how to combat against imbedded links... like I already know how to do.
malicious sites, however, like thunderbutts, cannot be guarded against when they have viruses.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2014
phishers can find out who you really are, and more, passwords you use
@beni ho-ho
by the way, mr NOOclear engineer...
this site is just as vulnerable to people grabbing your info through cookies, etc
you can also monitor communications if you know how to get the IP and ping the servers... add a trap-trace... but you would have to know the specific user name to do that... something like what shows up here when you post.

I would take your own advice, Benni... don't ever go to any links I post! like this one: http://phys.org/
I would stay FAR away form that site! it is phys.org, in case you cant read it!
You claimed it was proven wrong, where is the proof? What are these flaws?
@IMP-9
I've been asking RC for that since he first posted it here: http://phys.org/news/2014-03-rumours-gravitational.html

haven't seen him post anything yet...
maybe it was all that ignoring us that caused him to forget... anyone feel like counting his posts since that? :-)

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2014
Hi IMP-9. :) Here, you quoted me yourself:
BICEP2 'results/claims' now proven flawed


Except they haven't. There is one reanalysis claiming the original paper is wrong, that does not mean it is correct. There is no objective proof the BICEP result is wrong, yet. That won't be clear until Planck can confirm or refute.

You preach objectivity but you don't practice it. BICEP was never proof of the big bang, it was a test of inflation, a very specific big bang.


Note that I said that I saw their work assumptions, methodology etc, and hence dependent claims, were since proven "FLAWED". In other words, "NOT EVEN WRONG", as the old saying goes, based on work/paper' as presented in support at the time.

Really, IMP-9, with every confirmation-biased attempt at 'rewriting history' as to what 'went down' at the time, and every attempt at 'apologist' cop-outs instead of facing up to what happened and learning from it, you are giving 'ammunition' to the real 'enemies' of science.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2014
anyone feel like counting his posts since that? :-)


Hooyeei, well Captain-Skippy I tried to do that. But got tired of fooling around when I got up to 150 something.

I tell you, that is one science talking man there him. Every single one of the was about the science of troll-mod-messenger-bot-mafia-gangs.

I can not wait until he get to the good science stuffs like the criminal-objective-selected-for-the-sake-of-science-and-the-good-bias-of-society-and-all-that-is-good-for-the-human-races stuffs. The parts about victimography is good too if you get a chance to see him do that one.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2014
And IMP-9, for your own credibility, do yourself and your scientific standing/reputation a BIG favour, by dissociating yourself from the 'automated ratings-bot stupidity' which Captain Stooge and manipulating scumbag scammer Uncle Ira have been engaging in all over the net....against all ethics of objective science discourse and fair reading/commenting.

Good luck, IMP-9. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2014
Hey, Captain Moron.
@IMP-9
I've been asking RC for that since he first posted it here: http://phys.org/n...nal.html

haven't seen him post anything yet...
maybe it was all that ignoring us that caused him to forget... anyone feel like counting his posts since that? :-)

You failed to point out the obvious. I wouldn't have had to post ANY of it if idiotic and lying 'personality cult' trolls and pretenders like YOU and your "automated ratings bot Uncle Ira" didn't post such self-serving troll-shite 'versions' of what went down. Balme yourselves for me coming back and defending against your moronic spewings all over the forum (how about counting THEM, idiot). :)

I bet you haven't YET actually done the PROPER due diligence and found the flaws that everyone else has found in that BICEP2 'work/claims'. Idiot is so engaged in personality cult that due scientific diligence comes a far last in your 'agenda'. Moron.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2014
Hooyeei, well Captain-Skippy I tried to do that.
@Ira
sorry for the 1 star... the page didn't finish loading & i was trying to get RC

Yeah... you will not be able to count all those posts since he started to pull away from the internet... it is because he wants the attention, otherwise he would shut up and leave, like he says he is going to do!
The parts about victimography is good too if you get a chance to see him do that one
I saw that one, and I was the recipient of the criminal one... pretty funny, that one! I like how he says he is objective but then gets angry and cusses us all when proven wrong! LOL like here: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

THAT is what got him banned here: http://www.scifor...list.php
TWICE!
Once as RealityCHeck
Once as "Undefined"
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2014
And yet more lies and half-truths without regard to the full context and explanations already given. What else to expect from a trolling STOOGE of that Uncle Ira bot-operating scumbag and scammer. Who can believe a word you say, Captain Shitehead, when you fail in due diligence and full contextual factual reporting. Confirmation biased self-serving 'versions' is all you got. It's become obvious to all here who have any objective integrity left, Moron.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2014
I can not wait until he get to the good science stuffs
@Ira
I tried to get him to get to good science stuffs here: http://phys.org/n...nal.html

This is when he made his claim that BICEP2 was "flawed"... he NEVER POSTED ANYTHING PROVING that he was right! NOT ONE POST!
in fact, I dont think he ever answered it AT ALL... not even YET!

He has said that he would not have to post at all if it were not for down-votes.... which is funny, because all the downvotes are coming because he will not prove his comment or provide proof of his accusations are correct... and now is WAY too late, because he will only parrot some other scientist with brains, whch we can see he doesn't have here: http://www.scifor...list.php

again, that is why he keeps getting BANNED from other forums: RC MAKE UP CLAIMS
he never PROVES CLAIMS
he whines when people ask for evidence
then he argues semantics about why he is right
but loses
MODS BAN for trolling/being stupid!
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2014
@ Captain-Skippy the karma points don't mean nothing to me except when some couyon go to all the trouble to vote me bad from 12 or 10 puppets. Those I really like to get because it shows me I must be on to something if they go to all trouble to down vote me.

And they call ol Ira the idiot, I even tell that they work too hard at it and they work twice as hard to make more happy. And when they use the bad word to be mad at you? You really know you on to something then.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2014
Who can believe a word you say, Captain Shitehead
well, look what the cat dragged in from the sciforums ban!
considering everything I have said is in BLACK AND WHITE and PROVEN BY YOUR OWN WORDS
ON THE LINKS
AND ON THE FORUM... then only people who can read will believe it (skip beni-haha, he can't work computers so good) You want
full contextual factual reporting
how about this: you claimed
Even on a first read through the pdf, at least 4 fatal flaws jump out. At least 1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw
find it here: http://phys.org/n...nal.html
how many times did you answer the request to prove yourself...
I will tell you... I counted it! all the times you posted proof, and actually proved that you knew what you were talking about: ready?
ZERO
not ONE post! STILL!
this is the reason you keep getting BANNED: http://www.scifor...list.php
UNDEFINED- banned for
flaming/baiting (about BICEP2/PO)
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2014
Confirmation biased self-serving 'versions' is all you got. It's become obvious to all here who have any objective integrity left, Moron.


Hey Skippy he did not tell the lie no. He post up the places for anyone to look at and that is not the bias, that is the history preserved in your own self words for all the other peoples to make up their own mind. All he did was post up all your own words, oh yeah, I can see why you might not like that to be looked at to close.

But I can see how you would be worried about peoples getting biased at you after reading them, they are not something I would be so proud of peoples going back and reading no.

P'tit boug, Skippy you got the serious mental condition and you better watch your self in the tall grass, because them scientist-Skippy might want to net & capture you for some studying. There is not so many like you out there and they would happy to get to do some science on you..
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2014
@ Captain-Skippy the karma points don't mean nothing to me except when some couyon go to all the trouble to vote me bad from 12 or 10 puppets. Those I really like to get because it shows me I must be on to something if they go to all trouble to down vote me
@Ira
I like it when TROLLS like RC AKA "Undefined" call me
Captain Shitehead
STOOGE
and so many more, because it PROVES that I am RIGHT about them!

They don't see ti either!
They just want attention and are too stupid to get it with logical arguments or links, etc
like RC arguing above... he thinks by getting angry and calling me names he will show that I am a troll, when all the time he is proving to EVERYONE that he is a troll, stupid, doesn't know squat, and a ToE Liar!

he calls people names when he is found out! just like all the criminals I put in jail!
I see it a LOT... sometimes still do, even though I am retired.
Criminals are really stupid, but they think they are smart.

http://www.scifor...list.php
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2014
Hey Captain Hypocrite, I saw you posting your
one last parting shot
above.

But here you are again, shooting from your stupid troll mouth as well as your anus!

So much for your 'integrity' when you do what you keep accusing others of.

What's your excuse for that latest stupid hypocritical inanity, Captn Shitehead?

And the fact I was withdrawing from detailed discussion (for the reasons already explained to you et al) still has no place in your self-serving 'versions' and innuendoes and lies? Figures. LOL
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2014
Hey Captain Hypocrite
Captn Shitehead
So much for your 'integrity
Captain Moron
@Uncle Ira
You see, Ira... when a criminal gets cornered, and the get "caught", or found out, they lash out at whatever is around them... they think the argument is sound, but it is not. like his
parting shot
claims. I posted that 3 hours ago when I went to my daughters to help out... but now I am home, but leaving again in a few minutes. He don't know that, but I do! he thinks "AHA... I've caught something" when the reality-check (like that play on words?) is that he found SQUAT!
he is angry because the MODS banned him for TROLLING here http://www.scifor...list.php
He was reported for starting the SAME ARGUMENT as what he posts here right now!
there was NO PROOF then, and NONE now! but he argued it!
AND HE LOST

the mods, impartial, looked at his argument and saw what he was doing: TROLLING
THAT is why he's angry!
he got reported, he got banned
HE GOT CAUGHT!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2014
So, Captain Shitehead, when you say 'last shot', you have an excuse for coming back? But when I come back to defend against your personality cult' lying and self-serving idiocy, that excuse is not valid for my returning and posting as I see fit?

What a double-standards twerp you are. Not only a dummy, stooge and 'Uncle Ira' bot-operating criminal enabler, but also a raving and 'emotional' HYPOCRITE. Pah. You are what mainstream does NOT need, stupid. Mainstream credibility is being undermined more surely by such UNETHICAL and CRIMINAL ENABLING 'pretenders' like you. Moron.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2014
Hey Skippy he did not tell the lie
@IRA
you follow all the posts.. and even the ones on http://www.scifor...list.php
check out what he said... it is the SAME THING as here

He talks and talks, and never says anything, like his ToE jam he talks about all the time.

This is a psychological defense he has: there is NO ToE!
and we can prove that because he cannot validate his claims here; http://phys.org/n...nal.html

He NEVER really validates his claims, which indicates that he is here for the social interaction, which means that he intentionally gets people mad because he is a failure that cannot be a real man in real life. This stuff he yells at people here is because it is what is in HIM that he hates, so he calls other people "stupid, trolls, morons" and cusses them. Because he has nothing in life to look forward to.

REALITY and SCIENCE demand PROOF
and so do I
WHICH IS WHY HE HATES ME

G'nite Ira... let him rant!
HE'S A SAD SACK
he needs it
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2014
Mainstream credibility is being undermined more surely by such UNETHICAL and CRIMINAL ENABLING 'pretenders' like you. Moron.


Really-Skippy do you really skippy think that those real scientist-Skippys come here to do their science talking and listening?

If they do come here to read this stuffs, especial the stuff from you they probably only come for the big fun of watching how silly you are. They sure not come here for your science talking.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2014
And the fact I have already advised I was WITHDRAWING from detailed internet discussion (for the reasons stated many times to that idiot Captn and 'friend') does not figure in Captn Hypocrite's 'emotional' double-standards and confirmation-biased 'version' rants and moronity-to-the-max!

Really, where do they come from, these Captains-of-moronicity and hypocrisy and anti-science tactics? They must 'manufacture' them the same place they manufacture Uncle Ira's downrating-bot system, for dissemination to the trolling multitudes infesting the net.

Cheap and shoddy work, from cheap and shoddy minds deluded into thinking they are doing mainstream any favours with their idiotically transparent 'automated trolling/rating' idiocy.

Such sad cases, probably unaware of what they are doing, because of ego and self-delusions of 'being scientific', but actually tragi-comic trolls for all to see, hey! Poor Captn and his 'friend' Uncle Ira. Obviously. :)
IMP-9
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2014
Note that I said that I saw their work assumptions, methodology etc, and hence dependent claims, were since proven "FLAWED". In other words, "NOT EVEN WRONG", as the old saying goes, based on work/paper' as presented in support at the time.


No, more empty words with no substance. You never say what these flaws are so your rejection of the work is completely meaningless. "Not even wrong" is a cheap get out and doesn't apply, the work is experimental, it cannot be wrong without reason. For the last time, what are these flaws? Without any substance I am forced to reject your argument as nothing but talk.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
it cannot be wrong without reason. For the last time, what are these flaws? Without any substance I am forced to reject your argument as nothing but talk
@IMP
You are not likely to get an answer to this, IMP. This is the CRUX of my argument with him and to date I have only received the above diatribe as well as the following: NOTHING

It is more likely that, at this point, he will post some link from another physicist that makes a few points... but you will notice that, at the TIME of the comments, he was unable to come up with ANY arguments.

Given your level of knowledge in physics already displayed, IMP, you will not have a problem arguing the point against him. He has displayed little actual knowledge of physics...

I hope you get an answer. I will be watching to see. I really want to know what the old fart actually THOUGHT he was talking about.
Dr_toad
Jul 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
Hi IMP-9. :)
No, more empty words with no substance. You never say what these flaws are so your rejection of the work is completely meaningless. "Not even wrong" is a cheap get out and doesn't apply, the work is experimental, it cannot be wrong without reason. For the last time, what are these flaws? Without any substance I am forced to reject your argument as nothing but talk.

For those still being misled by the 'hysterical hypocrite' Captain Troll and 'friends' (who STILL keep lying and twisting the FULL CONTEXT, including the timing/brevity/reasons surrounding the ORIGINAL PARTING COMMENT urging everyone to do their own due diligence on the BICEP2 announced work/claims BEFORE sounding so certain that the work/claims are 'valid' as presented then, I will post separately below the WHOLE of my first comment on this subject, and then point out the context/reasons clearly stated therein for my reticence in engaging in any further detailed science discussions on the forums. Here:
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
Settle down, guys. Even on a first read through the pdf, at least 4 fatal flaws jump out. At least 1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw. I won't bother to read through it again until I have more time to spare for reading such patently obvious 'wishful thinking' and 'publish-or-perish' and 'Nobel coveting' so-called 'scientific work'. Since there is nothing in this that merits wasting valuable time that I can better apply elsewhere, I will leave it to you all to see if you can spot the 4 (at least!) fatal flaws for yourselves (leave ego and bias aside or you'll fail).

As you know I am too busy to start new conversations. Maybe I'll put a late-edit 'cautionary tale' footnote about this latest 'joke science' effort in my upcoming ToE book. For now, I just wanted to put it on the phys.org record that the 'science work' of this 'team' is more 'iffy' than much of what I have read in/from the 'mainstream' literature/activities over the years! Bye :)

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
Hi again, IMP-9. :) As you can see for yourself in my above-quoted post, I had advised the FORUM (as I had already Q-Star and others a number of times over many weeks before this episode), I was essentially withdrawn from detailed science discussion (owing mainly to risks of plagiarism; to limited time; and also because of the trolling 'personality cult' crap brought into almost every discussion by the main mindless troll culprits, "Captn Stooge and Hypocrite" and his BOT-operating 'friend' "Uncle Ira Scumbag and Scammer"). You can blame them and their ilk for why I will not go into any further details on the flaws I alluded to and which I 'briefly categorized' in my above post cautioning EVERYONE to stop and take a deep breath and checking more closely for themselves before going all 'uncritical-giddy-schoolgirl-excitement/acceptance' of the (to me immediately) obvious flawed BICEP2 work/claims which, given their basis as presented, also came across as a publish-or-perish 'exercise'.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
So, IMP-9, you can also see for yourself that EVER SINCE then, the hysterical hypocrite Captn Stooge troll has been twisting the context to his own dishonest and self-serving 'version'. He STILL fails to make clear that I had withdrawn from prolonged detailed science discussions here and elsewhere.

The only reason I have come in again at all is because of Captn Troll (in lame 'personality cult' lying 'conversations' with his 'friend' Scumbag Uncle Ira bot-operator) kept attacking me (the messenger) personally while not even bothering to take my advice and do his own due diligence on the then-announced BICEP2 'work/claims'.

Since then, I have only responded/defended against such idiotic twisting and trolling by 'personality cult' morons like Captn Dumb and 'friend' Ira Dumber.

Now, again: I've withdrawn from detailed science discussion to concentrate on ToE work/publication; and also, to minimize 'plagiarism' risks at this juncture; so I cannot say any more re 'flaws'. Stay loose! :)
Dr_toad
Jul 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
The expected evasion. How can anyone "twist" your meaning when you provide none? Except for your crude tirades and poor writing skills, there's absolutely no content to your posts.


Can't you read, toad? I said he twisted the CONTEXT surrounding my original parting post. Get it?

Man, if that is an example of the 'calibre' of 'reading objectivity' and 'salient point comprehension' which 'mainstreamers' bring to 'doing science research/discourse', then no wonder such 'unscientific' conformation-biased assumptive/interpretive/preconclusionary fiascoes as BICEP2 etc 'work/claims' have 'passed peer review' in the past and become 'citation based' starting premises/flaws in-built for all subsequent 'work/claims' in this field!

Mr_toad, you've just patently failed the simplest of 'objective reading & comprehension' tests. How can you expect anyone to take your 'personality cult' cheap shot opinions seriously now? :)

@IMP-9. :) See what 'toady' troll horrors infest this site? Bye.:)
Dr_toad
Jul 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2014
Utter horse shit.

Tch, tch, toady. In denial again?

You failed miserably at reading objectively and without confirmation bias, and then just trolled your baseless/misinformed personal opinion which proves you are incompetent to judge anyone or anything requiring actual objective observation/comprehension of what is presented.

So your above "Utter horse shit" perfectly describes what you posted after failing miserably at even the most simple test of actual honest objective reading/comprehension. Hence you will never become any real objective scientist. You haven't what it takes, obviously. Q.E.D.

Go slink under your troll blinker-blanket, little troll, and leave the adults to converse on the facts objectively presented. :)
Dr_toad
Jul 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
Adults? That's news! From your behavior, I was sure you're about 4, throwing tantrums and crap-filled diapers.

Oh dear, toady-kins. It's a sorry pass for you then, isn't it, that an alleged "4-year old, with crap-filled diapers and throwing tantrums" has just nevertheless demonstrated (via your own sorry troll posts above) that you don't even have the objective-reading/comprehension skills of a "4-year old with crap-filled diapers throwing tantrums", hey?

Give it up, toady. You're embarrassing yourself and undermining credibility of mainstreamers every time you act/post such troll shit opinions based on your 'objective reading/comprehension' which patently below that of this alleged 4-year old.

And what's with you 'toadying round' after automated-downratings-bot "Uncle Ira" in the ratings page; where "it" rates automatically and mindlessly from a list of names, irrespective of content, day or night, across many threads?

That's anti-scientific/-objective as it gets! Quit it.
Dr_toad
Jul 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
Your "objectivity" is showing: Everyone but you is a troll. Everyone but you can't reason critically. Everyone is either a fool or a 'bot, except you.

When pressed for something other than arm-waving and histrionics, you plead your "limited time, because I'm working on my ToE", then the arm-waving and histrionics begin again.

No wonder you get banned everywhere you go.

Stop exaggerating, silly toad. Only the trolls who act OBVIOUSLY like trolls and twist the facts in evidence ARE self-roven to be trolls. The rest (like IMP-9 etc) are obviously innocent victims of you trolls' dissembling and automated bot-rating and sustained 'personality cult' shenanigans which not only bring site into disrepute, but undermine credibility of genuine mainstreamers (not troll frauds and pretenders to 'mainstream').

Can't you see? Every such idiocy from you trolls gives ammunition which REAL anti-science religious/political/mercenary crazies USE AGAINST mainstream claims to integrity? Quit it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
Now come on, toad, let's have no more rationalizations and cop-outs and hair-splitting from you. Please be so kind and so honest as to answer this question I put to you earlier...

what DID you think of that BICEP2 'work/claims' at the time as presented then? Did you also find the flaws I alluded to?...and which mainstreamers have already found as well (although they have still missed some flaws which I saw above and beyond what mainstream has mentioned so far).


Come on, be a brave and honest 'toad', and just admit you were taken in because of the 'mainstream source' of that 'work/claims' as presented at the time. Go on, get it off your no doubt big strong toad chest. You'll feel better for being honest and not evading the point anymore.

Prove you have some integrity and self-respecting objectivity left, mate! Answer that question honestly before you think about continuing your trolling/toadying activity.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
The expected evasion. How can anyone "twist" your meaning when you provide none? Except for your crude tirades and poor writing skills, there's absolutely no content to your posts.
@Dr. Toad
did you like that one? he says I twisted the CONTEXT! LOL
How, exactly, does one twist the context of NO CONTENT which is clearly visible to ALL PERSONS, especially when at the same time the poster in question, even though he CLAIMS he is LEAVING, continues to post, and, on top of that, ARGUES AGAINST PEOPLE DENIGRATING HIM FOR NOT ADDING CONTENT TO PROVE HIMSELF.

so... he posts 47 replies... all arguing that we should calm down and understand his BS... and in that time ALL it would have taken to get people to SHUT UP would be to post JUST ONE POST with content!
ONE
DESCRIBING HIS REASONS... which he NEVER DID
ans STILL HASN'T DONE

instead he argues here about CONTEXT
THAT IS WHY HE WAS BANNED HERE: http://www.scifor...list.php
NO CONTENT
NO ANSWERS
JUST whiny BS TROLLING

LMFAO
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
No wonder you get banned everywhere you go
@DR. TOAD
He DOES get banned where ever he goes... for the same reasons too!
TWICE here: http://www.scifor...list.php
for the EXACT SAME THING
arguing about context, like above.
the funny thing is...
when you go to the link here: http://phys.org/n...nal.html

it is all in black and white proving my point!
it speaks VOLUMES against his trolling!
It actually PROVES that he made post after post after post with NO substance and never once explained what he meant by this comment
at least 4 fatal flaws jump out. At least 1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw
and EVERYONE can see that he made the call and ASSUMPTIONS but makes NO EFFORT to show what he meant!
in other words: HE CAN'T

how many posts here without even ONE proving he knew what he was talking about?
NONE
how many since MAR 17 proving he even READ the paper? knew what FLAWS there were?
NONE

RC=TROLL
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2014
You never say what these flaws are so your rejection of the work is completely meaningless. "Not even wrong" is a cheap get out and doesn't apply, the work is experimental, it cannot be wrong without reason
@IMP-9
I told you he would not give an answer!
that means a bazillion posts and he STILL has not said anything about WHAT HE MEANT when he denigrated the team that posted the paper!
WOW!
and he STILL thinks that he is the victim here!
YOU ASKED for what the fatal flaws were, you got this
STILL keep lying and twisting the FULL CONTEXT, including the timing/brevity/reasons surrounding the ORIGINAL PARTING COMMENT
Given that the link here: http://phys.org/n...nal.html
validates my statement that he never posted what those FLAWS were... and he got banned here: http://www.scifor...list.php
for the exact same BS he is trying to fawn off on everyone here!

his DELUSIONS keep interfering with his REALITY
no wonder he keeps getting BANNED
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
Hey, Captn-shite, more of your lame twisting?

You trolled me with 'hysterical' DEMANDS for further details, even AFTER I already made clear I had withdrawn from detailed science discussions.

Did you take my parting advice to do your OWN due diligence on those BICEP2 'work/claims' made at the time? NO. You proceeded to troll the 'departing messenger'.

So drop your trolling self-righteous twisting of THAT context for a start.

Then there is the 'banned at sciforums' half-truths you still 'try on' to fool readers like IMP-9 into believing your twists of THAT context as well.

It was obvious I was suspended at sciforums due to mod-trolls colluding in 'bait and ban' tactics aimed at 'covering' their own embarrassment for being 'taken in' by the BICEP2 work/claims at the time.

Like fraudulent mod-trolls pretending to mainstream 'objectivity and integrity' when 'bashing' hapless 'cranks', they stoop to trolling/colluding to ban those pointing out their own failures.

Hypocrites. :)

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
'hysterical' DEMANDS for further details, even AFTER I already made clear I had withdrawn from detailed science discussions
RC= OVER 47 POSTS ARGUING ABOUT
trolling self-righteous twisting
&
bla blah blah REAL anti-science religious/political/mercenary crazies USE AGAINST mainstream claims to integrity
and still NO ANSWER TO THIS SIMPLE QUESTION FROM IMP
You never say what these flaws are so your rejection of the work is completely meaningless. "Not even wrong" is a cheap get out and doesn't apply, the work is experimental, it cannot be wrong without reason
PERHAPS the RC troll should take his OWN advice below?
Prove you have some integrity and self-respecting objectivity left, mate! Answer that question honestly before you think about continuing your trolling/toadying activity.
of course, he will NOT
that is why he got BANNED here: http://www.scifor...list.php
PROOF he NEVER ANSWERED THE ????
http://phys.org/n...nal.html
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2014
Hey, Captain Shitehead troll, what is it about "already withdrawn from detailed science discussions on forums" do you STILL not 'get'? Moronic repetitive half-truth 'version' troll.

And speaking of "not giving answers", how about asking Dr_toad to answer my question to him repeated above; to wit...
what DID you think of that BICEP2 'work/claims' at the time as presented then? Did you also find the flaws I alluded to?...and which mainstreamers have already found as well (although they have still missed some flaws which I saw above and beyond what mainstream has mentioned so far).


Perhaps you can answer that as well if you dare to, honestly, hmm, Captn-of-the-shiteheads?

Toady's and your answer to THAT question will demonstrate not only the point, but also the context in which I made my original comment/suggestion in PARTING.

Go on, Cap, be honest in answering that question to yourself at least, if not to the forum which has had to suffer your 'twists and trolls' since then. :)
Q-Star
5 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2014
@ RC Holy Spherical Cow man. Ya can rest assured ya are making an impact on modern physics. I log on to a science forum and what's in my PM box? A note to come here and see RC making a spectacle of himself. Ya are famous man, famous I tell ya.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2014
Hi Q-S. How's the socks-n-bots business?
@ RC Holy Spherical Cow man. Ya can rest assured ya are making an impact on modern physics. I log on to a science forum and what's in my PM box? A note to come here and see RC making a spectacle of himself. Ya are famous man, famous I tell ya.


I note, as will the forum, that troll half-truths and outright lies are no substitute for facts in context.

Your fellow 'sock-troll-bot' (Captn?) has given you a bum steer.

The 'unwitting entertainment' is that Hysterical Hypocrite Captn-'half-truths', who is making a real McCoy, 100% troll-ass spectacle of himself, STILL. :)

IMP-9 and all objective observers now can see most clearly what 'hysterical hypocrite', and 'friend' of that automatic-rating bot-operating "uncle Ira", are up to.

They've been 'automatically goosing' each other with '5s'; shamelessly, daily and often, in full view of the younger readers! Yuk.

Q-S, will you answer the question I asked Dr_toad (& the Cap) re BICEP2?
Dr_toad
Jul 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
Jesus Christ in a fucking sidecar.... a Sideshow!
@Dr. Toad
Better than Cable, no?
Heck, He is even leaving Ira alone, he is so mad! LOL
@ RC Holy Spherical Cow man. ...ya are making an impact on modern physics
@Q-Star
Hey! good to see you...
Ever since he got the BOOT from sciforums http://www.scifor...list.php
for doing exactly what he is doing above, he has been here cussing and a spittin'!

and if you will notice, actually PROVING my argument above about having all the time in the world to TROLL here, argue and cry about Me asking him to prove himself when he said there were flaws (but then REFUSED to show that there were) and bashing the MODS here and everywhere for getting banned because he is a troll!

84 posts above since JUL12 and he never ONCE offers ANY info or PROOF supporting his denigration of the BICEP team
but HE IS BACKING AWAY from the internet! LOL

and that is ONLY this comment thread!

Dr_toad
Jul 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2014
The only thing better on cable is GOT. I can't wait for season five.
@Dr. Toad
what is GOT
i don't get TV. or cable. or satellite.
the only TV series I watch (when they put it on DVD a year after first showing publicly) is N.C.I.S.

You should look at RC's rants here: http://www.scifor...list.php
he is also "Undefined" who is ALSO banned now
I think some of the rants are still up there... http://www.scifor...e/page10

he posts there too, but never actually posts WHAT he was talking about.
black and white, all his own words, no skewed context, in his own face proof that he trolled at least TWO web-sites, denigrated a first ever publication of a first ever experiment and is STILL unable to prove his comments!
enjoy that for a while...
Dr_toad
Jul 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2014
Even on a first read through the pdf, at least 4 fatal flaws jump out. At least 1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1...


And yet you won't tell us a single one of them. I don't care how many flaws you claim to see, if you won't discuss it you have no argument. I reject your claims entirely. The BICEP paper stands.

I think you are a "hysterical hypocrite" you ask people to answer your questions while avoiding any directed at you. You are all talk, no substance. I gave you a chance to back your claims but you haven't even tried, no, science doesn't work with claims without basis.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jul 16, 2014
Hi IMP-9. :)

What claims, mate? I made NO claims, I had, for the reasons previously clearly stated, effectively withdrawn from detailed science discussion on the net.

And IN PARTING, I merely CAUTIONED certain 'types' to stop sounding like excited schoolgirls and groupies uncritically 'accepting' that BICEP2 'work/paper' as presented then was anything like the 'proof' they were saying it was while bashing hapless 'cranks' with 'links' to it as some 'unimpeachable work/claims' just because it was from mainstream source.

I then SUGGESTED strongly that THEY DID THEIR OWN proper due diligence just to see if they could catch the same systemic, assumptive/interpretive, methodological etc flaws which jumped out at me immediately when I read that BICEP2 'offering'. Period. :)

Instead of taking my suggestion to check it out for themselves before commenting further, the Hysterical Hypocrite and 'friend' Uncle Ira started in attacking/trolling me with hysterical demands, lies and abuse. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jul 16, 2014
And IMP-9, I only asked that question of Q-S et al because they were STILL trolling lies, innuendoes and half-truths, while AVOIDING the facts and the point made in my original post (as re-posted for your info yesterday, and which I assume you have read) by now.

An answer to my straightforward question:
what DID you think of that BICEP2 'work/claims' at the time as presented then? Did you also find the flaws I alluded to?...and which mainstreamers have already found as well (although they have still missed some flaws which I saw above and beyond what mainstream has mentioned so far).


...will clear up all the troll lies/twisting; and forestall further evasions of the point/suggestion I made originally, which involved NO claims on my part, merely a parting caution/suggestion they do their own due diligence immediately before any further commenting.

Note that no-one has yet answered that question which will explain a lot about what has been going on here about this? Cheers.:)
IMP-9
5 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2014
What claims, mate? I made NO claims,


So stating there are 7 flaws in the paper isn't a claim? What mad world is this? If you claim something is flawed you should justify that, or it is completely empty. It turns out these claims have nothing of substance to then, as far as I'm concerned you are a liar.

This was not a caution this is an outrifght claim. You're backtracking now to ovoid being seen as someone who goes on and on but manages to say absolutely nothing.

Don't demand people answer your questions when you do nothing but ovoid the difficult ones directed at you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2014
Did you see where some were 'excitedly accepting' and 'enthusing' and 'in raptures' over BICEP2 'work/claims', blithely assuming 'it was all kosher' just because it issued from 'mainstream' source/scientists?

My question quoted above ASKED for an answer from Q-S and ANYONE still posting lies and innuendo and 'self-serving' twisting the original context/facts of this matter, while avoiding the salient aspects which an HONEST answer to that above question would make clear. No wonder Q-S et al have not dared answer such a straightforward relevant question, hey?

OK, IMP-9? My post was a parting COMMENT only, and NOT 'claims' to be pursued; as I made clear when suggesting everyone do their own due diligence immediately, before they 'crowed' further 'uninformed' premature' comments/claims of their own.

And you can blame Hysterical Hypocrite (and his bot-operating 'friend' Uncle Ira" et al) 'personality cult' TROLL crap for why I had WITHDRAWN from detailed science discussion here. Cheers
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2014
And you can blame Hysterical Hypocrite (and his bot-operating 'friend' Uncle Ira" et al) 'personality cult' TROLL crap for why I had WITHDRAWN from detailed science discussion here. Cheers


Skippy I will gladly take the blame for that if you would hurry up and do it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2014
If you claim something is flawed you should justify that, or it is completely empty. It turns out these claims have nothing of substance to then, as far as I'm concerned you are a liar.
Don't demand people answer your questions when you do nothing but ovoid the difficult ones directed at you.
@IMP
87 posts and STILL no answer except that he has WITHDRAWN from detailed science discussion here! THAT MUST BE A RECORD... i mean... I might have believed it with 1 or 2 posts and NOTHING MORE... but repeating it 87 times?
you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, IMP, about him being nothing but a LIAR.

It is supported by the ABOVE, as well as : http://www.scifor...list.php
ONE REASON he was banned, you know.

MODS don't like LIARS & TROLLS

I really wish he would answer you though... I would like to see you destroy his attempt at physics... it would be the FIRST such attempt I've seen at PO.

IMP, your sharp eye and ability to see through the BS has won you my utmost admiration.
SINCERELY

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2014
And you can blame Hysterical Hypocrite (and his bot-operating 'friend' Uncle Ira" et al) 'personality cult' TROLL crap for why I had WITHDRAWN from detailed science discussion here. Cheers


Skippy I will gladly take the blame for that if you would hurry up and do it.

Thanks for your apology, bot-operator!

Already done. Withdrawal was from detailed science discussion, NOT from coming back to responding/defending whenever Hysterical Hypocrite and 'friend' bot-operator Uncle Ira troll et al STILL attempt their lying and half-truths twisting of facts in this matter.

BTW, Hysterical Hypocrite, do you think all forumers here have fallen for the "I'm not Uncle Ira" impression you are trying to give by 'having conversations' with your 'bot-alias' 'friend' Uncle Ira?

And how disgusting/stupid can you be? Not only do you, against all science ethics, use automated-downvoting bot-rating from a list of names irrespective, but you 'goose yourself' with '5's repeatedly! Creepy Yuk!
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2014
IMP, your sharp eye and ability to see through the BS has won you my utmost admiration.
SINCERELY


Me too IMP-Skippy. You always explain things without all the double talk and and twisting things around where they don't make sense anymore. That's why I trust your explanations on things. I will tell you true that a lot times I don't understand some of the things you explain at first but that is my fault not yours. At least it shows that you are not out to bamboozlize with the double talk. If you are not the professional-scientist-Skippy you at least must have spent some time in the real science school.

I am not so sure that Really-Skippy has even made it out of the elementary school yet because he acts a mad p'tit boug, that means little boy,,, if he has already finish the elementary school then his mental condition is worse that ol Ira thinks it is.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2014
Thanks for your apology, bot-operator!


Okayeei bot-liar-messenger-Skippy-doo, apology accepted by me too

But I still got to give you bad karma votes because you are still the liar-bot-Skippy you have always been.

But since you have the mental condition and everybody don't have trouble spotting you for the couyon, you can take the silly looking pointy cap off if you want to because we will know it's you whether you got him on or you got him off.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jul 16, 2014
87 posts and STILL no answer except that he has WITHDRAWN from detailed science discussion here! THAT MUST BE A RECORD... i mean... I might have believed it with 1 or 2 posts and NOTHING MORE... but repeating it 87 times?
you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, IMP, about him being nothing but a LIAR.

It is supported by the ABOVE, as well as : http://www.scifor...list.php
ONE REASON he was banned, you know.

MODS don't like LIARS & TROLLS

I really wish he would answer you though... I would like to see you destroy his attempt at physics... it would be the FIRST such attempt I've seen at PO.

IMP, your sharp eye and ability to see through the BS has won you my utmost admiration.
SINCERELY
Hysterical Hypocrite, how many lying, twisting, anti-science-ethics posts/tactics have you been posting since, to mislead/divert the forum?

My posts have been in RESPONSE to your hysterical/dishonest/hypocritical attacks.

Have you answered the question I asked of Q-S when he 'tried it on'? No? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2014
Thanks for your apology, bot-operator!


Okayeei bot-liar-messenger-Skippy-doo, apology accepted by me too

But I still got to give you bad karma votes because you are still the liar-bot-Skippy you have always been.

But since you have the mental condition and everybody don't have trouble spotting you for the couyon, you can take the silly looking pointy cap off if you want to because we will know it's you whether you got him on or you got him off.

And there you have it, folks! What Phys.Org has been reduced to; hostage to idiot-bot-operators and Hysterical Hypocrites who use 'personality cult' tactics to intimidating weak-minded types who fall for/acquiesce to such anti-science-ethics activity still allowed on this site despite the fact it is ruining this site.

Mainstream credibility/integrity is being undermined more surely by such scammers and manipulators out to sabotage sites while pretending to be 'mainstream' supporters than by any 'cranks'. Sad, very sad.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2014
90 posts and still no answer or justification for his attacks on the BICEP2 team
90 HERE ALONE

90 posts and still no legitimate science
90!

90 posts promising to leave and not troll but returning to troll and be proven a LIAR
a KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT
and a ToE teasing hypocrite
90!

banned from Sciforums for the same thing he is doing above TWICE as RC and as Undefined:
http://www.scifor...list.php

proof:
http://phys.org/n...nal.html

90 POSTS IN ONE COMMENT THREAD THAT SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

90 POSTS THAT ANSWER NO QUESTIONS

90 POSTS SAYING GOODBYE?

GOODBYE already! just LEAVE!
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2014
And there you have it, folks!


What you got there Skippy?

What Phys.Org has been reduced to; hostage to idiot-bot-operators and Hysterical Hypocrites who use 'personality cult' tactics to intimidating weak-minded types who fall for/acquiesce to such anti-science-ethics activity still allowed on this site despite the fact it is ruining this site.


How you call the anti-science-ethics activity. You never even brought up any science to be anti about Skippy.

Mainstream credibility/integrity is being undermined more surely by such scammers and manipulators out to sabotage sites while pretending to be 'mainstream' supporters than by any 'cranks'.


Mainstreaming credibility is doing just fine Skippy. And so is their integrity. Only thing getting undermined is your reputation for knowing any science stuffs to talk about. Shouldn't you be getting ready for the bedtime p'tit boug? You can play grown up mad couyon again tomorrow.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2014
Hey, Hysterical Hypocrite,

The real fact is, most of my posts have been prompted by, and in RESPONSE to, YOUR endless stream of lying/twisting shite which I was honor bound to defend against by pointing out the facts of the matter!

No? OK, then, carry on oblivious, you bot-tool of an idiot.

And my COMMENT was for YOUR benefit and action FOR YOURSELVES to do due diligence. I made no claims to pursue because I was withdrawing from science discussions here because of crap like that issuing from you RIGHT NOW as we speak.

And I was banned temporarily at sciforums because the MOD-TROLL gang was just as EMBARRASSED when I pointed out THEIR gullibility in that BICE2 farce, and so they COLLUDED as usual in bait-and-ban tactics which got me banned by the mod-trolls who tried to 'cover' their embarrassment by trying to silence the one who called BS, "Emperor had no Clothes on!".

So, your 'solution' to your embarrassment is to get me to 'leave' so you can continue lying about me? Deluded!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2014
Hey, Uncle Ira-bot-operator, and 'friend' of Hysterical Hypocrite,

How many times TODAY are you and your 'friend' Captn Hysterical going to be 'goosing each other' with 'automatic 5s' via your and your 'aliases' usernames?

It's a disgusting habit, idiot, and fooling no-one except the weak-minded whom you are 'phishing' for by pretending you are 'mainstream defenders' etc.

Get a life and an honest job, moronic bot-operating criminal troll. :)
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2014
How many times? Well Skippy I just don't know exactly. I don't have a lot to do and it is not any trouble. I was going to watch one of my Leverage videos but you are the more fun to watch, so I don't know how many. Maybe 20 or maybe 19.

What you care for that I vote good or vote bad? Is that what has you all worked up Cher? Just the way ol Ira votes? You must not be very happy about your place in the world if my votes get to you so much.

And the another thing I am curious for. If I am stupid and the idiot, and I am the bot-vote-machine thing, how stupid you got to be to even be talking to me in the first place?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2014
How many times? Well Skippy I just don't know exactly. I don't have a lot to do and it is not any trouble. I was going to watch one of Leverage videos but you are the more fun to watch, so I don't know how many. Maybe 20 or maybe 19.

What you care for that I vote good or vote bad? Is that what has you all worked up Cher? Just the way ol Ira votes? You must not be very happy about your place in the world if my votes get to you so much.

And the another thing I am curious for. If I am stupid and the idiot, and I am the bot-vote-machine thing, how stupid you got to be to even be talking to me in the first place?

Your "uncle Ira' etc aliases here all day 'voting automatically' across many threads. So your 'cover story' is blown already, idiot.

My 'responses' to posted Captn Hysterical (alias Uncle Ira) troll-shit are opportunities to counter/expose the lies issuing from you/your socks/bot aliases.

Your 'conversations' between 'Cap-n-Uncle' indicate 'schizoid'. Sad.
Dr_toad
Jul 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2014
Every forum that has banned you for the kind of schizoid bullshit attacks you perpetrate is infested with troll-bots, is that right? Or do they all follow you around, waiting for you to allude to something vacuous just so they can make derisive remarks?

Have you discussed this with your mental health professional, or are they in on the plot too? Are they trying to steal your magnum opus as well? Is that why?
Whatsamatter, toady, cat got your brain? What's with that "every forum" ploy?

I have only ever posted on 4 forums, and I can STILL post on 3 of them, as me. :)

How many forums have you been banned from under aliases? Hypocrite. :)

And what you trolling LIARS and HALF-TRUTH promulgators always OMIT from your self-serving 'versions', is that the MOD-TROLL gangs have been infesting forums for YEARS now, as PROVEN VIA INTERNET EXPERIMENT more than once.

Your lack of due diligence as to ALL the FACTS strikes again!

Can you answer the question I asked Q-S et al re BICEP2? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2014
Now, everyone, if the trolling liars and hypocrites can STOP with their half-truth hypocritical self-serving 'versions' about the facts and about me, then I won't have to come back and defend against and expose the 'usual suspect' troll lies and innuendoes.

Let's see if the trolls have had enough of being exposed, and stop their stupid/automated antics now that all the facts are made known to counter their falsehoods.

My observation to anyone STILL intending to troll me further on this matter: The forum would just LOVE to hear your answer to my question to Q-S et al, re the BICEP2 'offering' at the time. :)

Good luck and good thinking, everyone! I will still be reading you all. Bye for now. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2014
@Dr. Toad
@IMP
@IRA
MY DUE DILIGENCE is pointing out the TROLL above!

95 and counting
95!

95 posts and he STILL CANNOT provide an ANSWER/PROOF to his unprovoked attack on the BICEP2 team... SO INSTEAD, HE TURNS IT AROUND AND ASKS US TO ANSWER FOR HIM!!!!
aint THAT a bit of crazy????
95 POSTS!

No half-truth with that there!
No "context" misrepresentation!
NO justification for LIBELOUS ATTACK on the BICEP2 team!
NO PROOF that he saw anything other than a delusion and some hallucinations!
all right here above in black and white!

95 posts that tell about how he is backing off

(Crap! I would HATE to see how prolific he would be if he was NOT backing off if it takes 95 posts to say GOODBYE here!!)
I can STILL post on 3 of them
cant post HERE: http://www.scifor...list.php
as RC.. OR as his sock puppet "Undefined"

MODS said the ban is for TROLLING (SEE LIST @ LINK)

I bet that he hits TRIPLE DIGITS in the next day
less if he decides to back away from posting any more
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 17, 2014
Hey, Hysterical much, you lying moron? The record at:

http://www.scifor...list.php

clearly states:

Undefined .............. 07-11-14 31 Days 08-11-14, ~08:00 PM 25 Days, 21 Hours flaming/baiting.

It was for flaming/baiting, you idiot.

And I already explained that it was because the mod-trolls involved in that abuse of power COLLUDED in 'bait-and-ban' tactics in order to try and silence me after I pointed to their own failures and gullibility regarding 'accepting' the BICEP2 'work/claims' as presented at the time.

They were obviously just as much EMBARRASSED as YOU and the rest of the trolling lying hypocrites here when I pointed to your own failures in that respect at the time...and STILL, because you keep trolling hysterical self-serving 'versions' like that one above, motivated by your DENIAL to admit and face the EMBARRASSMENT of being WRONG and me RIGHT.

What next from you, clown?

And you still 'goosing yourself' with '5s' via your alter-ego Uncle Ira? Schizo.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 17, 2014
Now, Captn hysterical lying idiot, stop posting BS-laden 'versions' which will make me have to come back and expose your trolling hysteria again for what it is: Embarrassment-cover-up-attempts at diverting attention from your OWN stupidity, gullibility and hypocritical trolling and enabling of BOT-operating 'socks' like Uncle Ira username. "Quit it or you'll go blind" is the most appropriate counsel I can give you trolling 'schizo'.

Get over it. Move on, "Captain".
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2014
97 and still nothing
yall should see what the MODS say about him now that he is BANNED again!

of course, no matter WHERE he goes, there is collusion against him
that is why 97 posts are here about it

too bad it shows above in BLACK AND WHITE that he is a BLATANT LIAR
MODS banned him for this same thing here: http://www.scifor...list.php

his reasoning on the site: same as above
everyone is picking on him...
considering he's posted 97 times and STILL never justified his comments about BICEP2
STILL never said what he thinks his delusional Alzheimer's mind saw
STILL never answered IMP, Q-Star or anyone else...

97 posts saying he is backing away from posting on-line now!

still lying

I have proved my point and he has YET to produce one SHRED of evidence, I am leaving him alone now, to bask in his TROLL anonymity and enjoy his rightfully justified BAN FROM THE FORUMS

since he STILL can't PROVE ANYTHING except that he is a TROLL
& I'm PROVEN RIGHT IN HIS OWN WORDS ABOVE
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 17, 2014
*Sigh* I had (again) logged out, but have to (again) come back and point out the poor Captn's hysterically hypocritical and plain WRONG 'versions' of what went down.

Hey, Captn, I understand now: you can't help yourself. Once started on the downhill 'schizo troll' slide you find it almost impossible to stop yourself.

Poor Captn/Uncle Ira, I have just above pointed out (again) your ERROR regarding the cause of my temp ban at sciforums. I also (again) explained the reason: the mod-troll gang 'bait-and-ban' tactics to 'cover' their own embarrassment at being reminded of their own gullibility etc re BICEP2 fiasco.

And since I already explained I had withdrawn from detailed science discussion here and elsewhere, stating the reasons why most clearly, then how about finally getting it through that noggin of yours that I don't have to or want to get involved in same further due to your and others trolling silliness?

Now, at least answer (to yourselves) the question I asked Q-S. :)

Bye.:)
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2014
Bye.:)


Bye to you too Skippy-doo. Now I am going to withdraw from the silly discussion to go work on my secret science thing. So Really-Skippy I suggest you do better than you have been doing for the sake of the scientist-Skippys who come here to talk about the science.

Oh yeah I almost forget. Do better and don't make me come back to defend my honor because if I have to come back, I'm going cut you if you stand there and shoot you if you run (I'm lazy like that me.) So do better so ol Ira don't have to come back to keep his honor.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 17, 2014
There you are, forum. Now it's official.

This site is run by bot-operating scumbags and the "Uncle Ira" troll-sock gang.

With every criminally dumbass post they inflict on the forum, they sabotage and undermine 'mainstream' credibility more surely and more often than any alleged cranks could ever do.

That is apparently their agenda, and it's working.

Another lame 'infestation' by the 'usual suspects' mod-troll-sock gang. What a farce. They make a mockery of any rating system and all scientific ethics. Shame on them.

The 'mainstream' pretenders haven't even the guts to answer that question asked of Q-S re the flawed BICEP2 'work/claims' as presented at the time. Or to admit and apologize when they have made a mistake and when they have unfairly personally attacked the messenger, instead of doing their own proper due diligence regardless of 'source' or 'reputation'.

Some objective 'scientists' and 'commentators' they'd make. Sad.

Good luck & good thinking to all good scientist!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2014
Bye to you too Skippy-doo. Now I am going to withdraw from the silly discussion to go work on my secret science thing
@IRA
vous ne pensez pas vraiment que, après 99 postes ici et gaspiller mois depuis le 17 Mars mensonge et étant donné tort, sans l'ombre d'un doute avec ses propres mots qu'il fait quitter, vous l'avez Ira?
Il est le pire des menteur. Il est celui qui se trouve lui-même à se faire semble importante.

cet homme ne peut pas faire confiance avec des objets pointus. Il est un imbécile.

Dans ses propres mots, il dit qu'il est un menteur avec 99 postes ici et jamais rien pourquoi il a menti sur BICEP2 le 17 Mars disant
tout ce qu'il avait à faire est de dire ce qu'il a vu, mais il est le vieil homme de la fraude de menteur. Il est l'homme de faux qui pense qu'il est un scientifique importante.

sa bouche est comme un pet puant les commentaires ici.

laisser le vieil homme à mourir d'une mort troll

Enjoy Ira
I know you understand
http://www.scifor...list.php
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2014
@IRA
vous ne pensez pas vraiment que, après 99 postes ici et gaspiller mois depuis le 17 Mars mensonge et étant donné tort, sans l'ombre d'un doute avec ses propres mots qu'il fait quitter, vous l'avez Ira?


Not really. Peoples like that don't change no.

Il est celui qui se trouve lui-même à se faire semble importante.


His momma must have told him that when he come home from school all bloody and bruised. And he believed he believed her.

Il est un imbécile.


The BIG couyon for sure.

sa bouche est comme un pet puant les commentaires ici.


You are the bad man Cher. You should be ashamed with you.

laisser le vieil homme à mourir d'une mort troll


Could not be too soon for ol Ira.

Enjoy Ira
I know you understand
http://www.scifor...list.php


I wish they would hurry up and let him back in.
Dr_toad
Jul 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2014
Forum will note that the 'usual suspects' schizo-socks are having 'a conversation' between 'themselves'. Hilariously naff and stale old mod-troll-sock gang tactics to try to distract genuine observers from the exposed troll-bot-operating gang still infesting this site and manipulating reader-opinion via automated bot-rating votes from a list irrespective of others' content.

Forum will also note that the usual suspect 'mainstream pretenders' suddenly got all 'shy and retiring' when asked to answer that straightforward question asked of Q-S re that BICEP2 'work/claims' at the time; their answer to which would clear up all the crap the above mod-troll-sock-bot gang 'personality cult' lies and innuendoes are trying to perpetrate while disgustingly and unashamedly 'goosing themselves' daily and often with '5s' via their bot-rater system sock 'usernames'.

It's fascinating to watch the insensibility and low criminal mentality betrayed by that 'usual suspects gang' activities. But also sad.
Dr_toad
Jul 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2014
Does it not figure in your 'programming' that you have been exposed, dumbass?

So any further attempts from your 'sock-troll-bot-gang' at 'usual suspect' tactics and claims to 'innocence' and 'credibility' on your part are 'already dead in the water' as long as you 'run with' and condone that "Uncle Ira" AUTOMATED BOT rating from a list and irrespective of others post content, dumbass.

That's as ANTI-SCIENCE ETHICS as it can get, dumbass.

And when are you 'dumbass' gangmembers going to answer (for the forum) that straightforward question asked of Q-S re that BICEP2 'work'/claims' at the time? Obviously, the answer to it would explain why all the 'usual suspect' distractions since then from you lying twisting anti-science&humanity-ethics dumbasses criminal scumbags who keep embarrassing mainstream with your stupid and transparent antics that undermine mainstreamer credibility as no 'cranks' could ever hope to do.

'Well done', dumbasses; it's your 'sociopathy' that's been 'on show'.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2014
@RealityCheck

For someone who is writing a science shattering book on TOE you sure are wasting a lot of time here. Stick to your book. The Noble committee is giddy in anticipation.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2014
@Vietvet.
@RealityCheck

For someone who is writing a science shattering book on TOE you sure are wasting a lot of time here. Stick to your book. The Noble committee is giddy in anticipation.

Some people can 'walk and chew gum at the same time'.

Apparently the 'usual suspects' gangmembers aren't capable of even that much.

Gangs of dumbasses being 'automated internet sociopaths' (like the ones exposed here and elsewhere via my many internet experiments) haven't a clue that their 'sociopathic antics' have been tracked and recorded for future evidence.

And that automated-sock toad, whose 'sockpuppeteer' handler just googled 'usual suspects', is obviously too insensible to recognize that the phrase in English has since become common usage as a 'generic label' for any gang of 'predictable dumbass twits', criminal or otherwise.

And still the question, asked of Q-S re BICEP2 'work/claims' at the time, has gone unanswered by the 'usual suspects' pretenders. Enough said? Wise up. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2014
And when are you 'dumbass' gangmembers going to answer (for the forum)
I am sure it would be right after YOU decide to answer (for the forum) exactly WHAT 8 things you were referring to with your post on March 17 regarding BICEP2 when you said
on a first read through the pdf, at least 4 fatal flaws jump out. At least 1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw.
101 posts and all you had to do was tell everyone what those 8 things were that you SUPPOSEDLY saw...

your failure thus far only PROVES and JUSTIFIES calling you a LIAR
because everyone can see IN black and white that you have no evidence to support your claims!

no posts proving your point
no posts answering the questions posed to you as early as MARCH 17
no validity to your claim

you are done here
your word holds no power except to spam
your authority is nonexistent

you are a con artists hoping for fame, but getting caught in the act

sorry charlie... YOU LOSE
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2014
Hey you, Captn Stupid......Quit your Hysterical Hypocritical Moronicity, dumbass. You've been busted already, and your continuing attempts to EVADE your own responsibilities to the full truth/context of this matter are 'already dead in the water', dumbass.

I already many times explained why I am withdrawn from detailed science discussion; and I merely made pating comments/suggestions as to WHY should ALL do your own due diligence before 'believing' any 'work/claims', irrespective of 'mainstream' or other 'source'.

Now, again, what is your 'usual suspects' gangmember excuse for NOT answering ONE straightforward question, as asked of Q-S re the BICEP2 'work/claims' as at that time? Hypocritical Hysterics much, dumbass?

I also exposed your continuing 'double-sock act' using that troll-sock 'schizo' Uncle Ira bot-operation dummy.

That sort of sociopathy and fraud is as Anti-Science-Ethics as it gets, dumbass. Does that not compute in your bot-assed 'brain', double-dumbassed nit-twit.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2014
@ RC, I do wish ya would quit using me and your questions out of this thing. I don't remember ya asking me a question about BICEP2. If you restate it, I will be glad to answer it in good faith and honestly. But ONLY after YOU answer the question I asked of ya first. I asked it on the day that the BICEP2 results were released. My question was first so your answer should also be first. Otherwise, just leave me out of histrionics and drama.

@ Captain. Keep up the good work. Critics should never be immune to being criticized. RC has some delusion of being the modern-day "Socrates" or "Salviati" but his constant displays of emotion bordering on hysteria put the lie to that delusion. Wise men don't throw tantrums.

@ Ira. Ya keep up the good work too. Ya would be flattered if ya knew the names of some of the "peoples" following ya.

@ RC, again, I ask of ya, to leave me out of your drama, please.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2014
Hey you, Captn Stupid..

Watch it there, that's my line. BTW, I think you have encountered a daisy chain of jock puppets.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2014
Forum: Looks like the AUTOMATED RATING 'bot-gang 'usual suspects' are reduced to 4 socks! LOL

And they're STILL insensibly 'goosing each other in public' with OBVIOUS bot-rating '5s' for each of their gang's 'username' socks.

Hilarious, if it wasn't sad and disgustingly 'yuk' to watch! LOL-YUK-SAD.

How many times will they come back with their already-exposed antics? The "Dumbass Meter" is already at MAX indication for this 'usual suspects' gang of dumbasses.

Just watch, it won't be long before the 'next usual suspect' sock tries out yet another 'insensible' attempt to 'distract' from their 'dumbassness-to-the-max' already achieved long since by this Anti-Science-Ethics scumbag crew! LOL
Dr_toad
Jul 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2014
I already many times explained why I am withdrawn from detailed science discussion;
yep... you used that EXCUSE while posting 103 times IN THIS THREAD ALONE
see above for proof- in BLACK AND WHITE
you would have thought it would be easier to just TELL EVERYONE what those 8 flaws were... but you prefer to TROLL and post how withdrawn you have become (repeatedly- i hate to tell you this, but, IF you REPEATEDLY POST more than 100 posts TELLING PEOPLE you are withdrawing, then YOU ARE NOT WITHDRAWING!!!! LMFAO )
You've been busted already
FUNNY! 103 posts here and not ONE SHRED OF PROOF OF THIS COMMENT

just like 103 posts here and NOT ONE TIME HAVE YOU ANSWERED FOR YOUR BLATANT LIES DENIGRATING BICEP2

just like 103 POSTS HERE, AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T WITHDRAWN...

you WILL post again

you WILL TROLL again

you WILL try to argue this point, BUT
IT ONLY PROVES ME RIGHT
AND PROVES YOU A LIAR
AND PROVES YOU A TROLL

see: http://www.scifor...list.php
PROOF RC=TROLL

G'nite
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2014
Partial post deleted...full post to follow.
Dr_toad
Jul 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2014
@Q-S.

My original post in the OTHER thread: http://phys.org/n...nal.html
q]Settle down, guys. Even on a first read through the pdf, at least 4 fatal flaws jump out. At least 1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw. I won't bother to read through it again until I have more time to spare for reading such patently obvious 'wishful thinking' and 'publish-or-perish' and 'Nobel coveting' so-called 'scientific work'. Since there is nothing in this that merits wasting valuable time that I can better apply elsewhere, I will leave it to you all to see if you can spot the 4 (at least!) fatal flaws for yourselves....). As you know I am too busy to start new conversations. Maybe I'll put a late-edit 'cautionary tale' footnote about this latest 'joke science' effort in my upcoming ToE book. For now, I just wanted to put it on the phys.org record that the 'science work' of this 'team' is more 'iffy' than much of what I have read in/from the 'mainstream' literature/activities over the years! Bye!

My post above (in THIS thread) on July 15 in response to Dr_toad:
Now come on, toad, let's have no more rationalizations and cop-outs and hair-splitting from you. Please be so kind and so honest as to answer this question I put to you earlier...
what DID you think of that BICEP2 'work/claims' at the time as presented then? Did you also find the flaws I alluded to?...and which mainstreamers have already found as well (although they have still missed some flaws which I saw above and beyond what mainstream has mentioned so far).
Come on, be a brave and honest 'toad', and just admit you were taken in because of the 'mainstream source' of that 'work/claims' as presented at the time. Go on, get it off your no doubt big strong toad chest. You'll feel better for being honest and not evading the point anymore. Prove you have some integrity and self-respecting objectivity left, mate! Answer that question honestly before you think about continuing your trolling/toadying activity.


Please NOTE WELL the re-quoted question re BICEP2 'work/claims' I asked toad et al therein. :)

My further post (also in THIS thread) on July 15 in response to YOU, Q-S:
Hi Q-S. How's the socks-n-bots business?
@ RC Holy Spherical Cow man. Ya can rest assured ya are making an impact on modern physics. I log on to a science forum and what's in my PM box? A note to come here and see RC making a spectacle of himself. Ya are famous man, famous I tell ya.
I note, as will the forum, that troll half-truths and outright lies are no substitute for facts in context. Your fellow 'sock-troll-bot' (Captn?) has given you a bum steer. The 'unwitting entertainment' is that Hysterical Hypocrite Captn-'half-truths', who is making a real McCoy, 100% troll-ass spectacle of himself, STILL. :) IMP-9 and all objective observers now can see most clearly what 'hysterical hypocrite', and 'friend' of that automatic-rating bot-operating "uncle Ira", are up to. They've been 'automatically goosing' each other with '5s'; shamelessly, daily and often, in full view of the younger readers! Yuk. Q-S, will you answer the question I asked Dr_toad (& the Cap) re BICEP2?


NOTE WELL the last sentence/question I put to you therein asking if YOU can answer that same question asked of toad et al. :)

And that, Q-S, is the straighforward question I have now asked YOU and ALL those 'mainstream gullible' pretenders who STILL attack the messenger (me) with their troll versions of what went down, while ignoring their own failure to do due diligence for themselves as I suggested in parting.

The answer to that question will explain WHY I was being attacked: in order to distract from your own failures/gullibility by attacking me for warning you that effectively your 'mainstream believer' gullibility was showing in that instance, and to do your OWN FURTHER and PROPER due diligence before making any further 'excited schoolgirl'-like 'rave' comments about the BICEP2 'work/claims' as at that time.

Enough said? Carry on, Q-S! :)

Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2014
Partial post deleted...full post to follow.


I hope you make him better than the first one.

But if you take requests I would really like for the Really-Skippy to do the one about how he is protecting the scientists from being victims like he was and so they don't get captured by the message-bot-troll-mods conspiring to keep the message secret and all like that.

Will you do that one for me Cher?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2014
maybe you are nipping at his bait when you shout?
@ DR. Toad
Yep, I completely understand that. It is all part of my psych study.
If you will note above, you can see how his delusion evolved... at first, he screams and whines because he has been "unjustly" attacked, then, you see when he is asked for empirical data supporting his conclusions, he offers none but instead tries to turn the tables on the rest of the forum... Then, as I push his buttons, he repeatedly proves my points over and over again.
It is important to watch the delusional as they unfold... it can provide clues to their true mental problems. You can see where he is completely unable to admit any fault... simple, right? but also notice that he has convinced himself of his superiority, his justification for standing her trolling about his getting caught in a bold-blatant lie... he has turned this into the white-hat where he envisions himself as protector of truth like Q-Star or another like-minded poster!

cont'd
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2014
Partial post deleted...full post to follow.


I hope you make him better than the first one.

But if you take requests I would really like for the Really-Skippy to do the one about how he is protecting the scientists from being victims like he was and so they don't get captured by the message-bot-troll-mods conspiring to keep the message secret and all like that.

Will you do that one for me Cher?


Non, he was not any better than the first one. Really-Skippy should try to do better Cher.
Dr_toad
Jul 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2014
You can see where he is trying to "white-knight" the thread and pose as though he is protector of reality and objective posts and especially of accuracy.

And yet by watching him from the beginning, you can see where the delusion first unfolds... when?
that's right! WHEN he is CAUGHT RED HANDED!
when he hands out his bashing, he gets caught in a lie by being asked to produce proof of statement... then, as you watch over time, he evolved this whole drama background story to make it look like he is being persecuted (which needs a villain- Q for being the physicist that he will never be, and I for pointing out his shortcomings and continuing to point out that he is delusional and a liar)

So... Yes, I rise at times but believe it or not, it is really for the good of my research and study, which I am helping collect data for.
Sometimes we take bets on how certain people will react: RC is predictable, CD, ryg, and most others are way too predictable too... Alche surprised me, really

enjoy
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2014
@Automatic 'self-goosing' schizo his sock-dummies. Give it up, dumbass. You're 'self-goosing' with '5s' and rating automatically from a 'list of usernames' irrespective of post contents is as ANTI-SCIENCE-ETHICS as it can get. And Anyone STILL condoning such lame sociopathy antics is complicit (without any excuse) in the inevitable and daily undermining of mainstream credibility which those antics accomplish much more surely than any alleged 'cranks' can.

Poor "Uncle Ira" et al socks-troll dumbass 'self-goosing' bot-operating scumbag types on the net are too much! LOL...and too SAD... It's like watching a news video of a train wreck in slow motion, every day you make your naff scamming 'posts' and 'conversations' between your 'schizoid' socks. Creepy as hell.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2014
You can see where he is trying to "white-knight" the thread and pose as though he is protector of reality and objective posts and especially of accuracy.
Forgot to add this:

This is part of the purpose of the study

WHY people believe in things when the empirical data in their face proves them wrong, and how they react, how they defend against the reality that encroaches upon their faith/fantasy world, and how their delusions integrate themselves into their every day world

You can see that there are some DOOZIES I mentioned in the collection of data... :-D

I collect their posts and all relevant posts with them, mine

Been working for months... will be taking notes data till December or so...
Having fun
sometimes I poke, sometimes I am derisive, sometimes I am analytical... just depends on what I am looking for...

Hope you enjoy it Dr. Toad.
Dr_toad
Jul 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2014
I know! And nothing anyone can say (without a syringe of something that would be illegal for you and me) will change the fantasy he lives in.

Since you said continued, sorry for the parenthesis.
@Dr. Toad
no prob for the parenthesis ...

You are more correct than you know!

sad thing is, he is worse on other threads like Sciforums.com
You can ask Q-Star about that.
the MODS there are his enemies, other than Q-Star (for above reasons)
His type never learn from past mistakes either... The funniest thing?
He knows about my study: but is too narcissistic to back off... he just HAS to prove himself in his own delusional world! See above for details.
(hence the occasional poke ...)

headed out for a bit.

PEACE Dr. T

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2014
You can see where he is trying to "white-knight" the thread and pose as though he is protector of reality and objective posts and especially of accuracy.
Forgot to add this:

This is part of the purpose of the study

WHY people believe in things when the empirical data in their face proves them wrong, and how they react, how they defend against the reality that encroaches upon their faith/fantasy world, and how their delusions integrate themselves into their every day world...
Wow, Captn Screw-Loose, you certainly like 'shouting out' the same lame self-serving troll half-truth hypocritical 'versions', don't you

And how do YOU idiotic hypocritical 'mainstream gullibles' react when your own 'excited schoolgirl' comments and 'beliefs' in that BICEP2 'work/claims' was pointed out? Even after I and honest/competent mainstream has seen BICEP2 'work/claims' was flawed to the point it was just obvious publish-or-perish' BS...which you fell for hook-line-and-sinker, Dummy.
Dr_toad
Jul 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2014
Damn, man. I wish the PM thing worked here. Peace.
just saw your post...Logging out in 5 cause I have to drive in 4 hours.

just so you know... you can go here: http://www.scifor...list.php
THis is the site that BANNED RC as RealityCheck and as Undefined... the mods are pretty hot and heavy. BUT
I am there as Truck Captain Stumpy and you can get my e-mail address and PM
especially if you visit a Senior member that I have as a friend on my friend list...

go there. You can discuss the BICEP2 results :-)

SEE... told you he was too narcissistic ! :-)

KEEP THE FAITH
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2014
Poor insensible Captn-of-Idiots.
Damn, man. I wish the PM thing worked here. Peace.
just saw your post...Logging out in 5 cause I have to drive in 4 hours.

just so you know... you can go here: http://www.scifor...list.php
THis is the site that BANNED RC as RealityCheck and as Undefined... the mods are pretty hot and heavy. BUT
I am there as Truck Captain Stumpy and you can get my e-mail address and PM
especially if you visit a Senior member that I have as a friend on my friend list...

go there. You can discuss the BICEP2 results :-)

SEE... told you he was too narcissistic ! :-)

KEEP THE FAITH
You just signed-off to Dr_toad sock with "KEEP THE FAITH"...and you talk of others being stupid? Unbelievable level of NON-self-awareness if ever there was.

Captn Twit, stop your daily troll 'version' drivel about my scifo ban. Already explained it was from MOD-TROLL-SOCK gang collusion (after they were EMBARRASSED by my reminders of their own BICEP2 gullibility).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2014
@Q-Star. :) I posted above what you wanted to know, approx. twelve posts back. OK?

Obviously the usual suspect trolls and idiots gang has since posted BS drivel posts in order to 'bury it' so you (and the forum) might miss it. Desperate hypocritical trolls, hey?

Bye, and good luck and good thinking, Q-S. :)
Dr_toad
Jul 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2014
@Toad. :)
Tomorrow, and thanks.
Are you going to take sock-Captn Stupid's "KEEP THE FAITH" to heart like a good little religious believer in mainstream even in the face of proven 'mainstream source' BS like that BICEP2 fiasco? Or will it finally dawn on you that I am objective and scientific, and more independent observer, than any and all those silly 'mainstream pretenders' mod-troll-socks and associated frauds infesting this and other forums? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2014
A POLL question:

"Who here still condones the "Uncle Ira" et al gang's egregiously Anti-Science-Ethics tactic of using a bot-ratings system to vote '1s' and '5s' based on a programmed list of usernames and irrespective of posted content?"

Dr_toad
Jul 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2014
@Dr_toad. :)
Fucking crazy, just shut up.

What's the matter, toad? Cat got your conscience? :)

You have no problem with 'Uncle Ira' gang automated ratings and associated trolls' lying and innuendo, but you object to a straight POLL to see who actually 'supports' you and the 'Uncle Ira' BOT 'usual suspect' gang tactics and attacks? :)

Now, where were we? Oh yes....the POLL. I will repost it (please see next post) so no-one will miss it, m'k?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2014
A POLL question:

"Who here still condones the "Uncle Ira" et al gang's egregiously Anti-Science-Ethics tactic of using a bot-ratings system to vote '1s' and '5s' based on a programmed list of usernames and irrespective of posted content?"
Dr_toad
Jul 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2014
I vote for the Uncle-Ira-Skippy.

He makes the most sense to me and I am agreeing with his votes because I don't like the Really-Skippy either.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2014
@Dr_toad. :) Why are you so shy? Do you condone it or not?
RC, are you still beating your husband?
You are way off in your 'due diligence' again, toad. Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough? Why the coyness still? You won't answer the original question re BICEP2, and now you won't answer this POLL question? Have you always been so afraid of straightforward questions while pretending to be 'mainstream' while carrying on like a silly ass as you have lately 'in company' with that moronic twit and bot-loving 'Self-Goosing Duo' Uncle Ira and the 'Captn-ventiloquist's-dummy' and his Uncle Ira 'bot-assed' handler?

Just apologize to me and the forum for what you've done, and all this will go away and be forgot soon enough, hey? Be brave! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2014
Oh, and don't forget, toad: also stop all these silly automated-bot idiocy across the forums, and concentrate on fair comment and due dilgence and ratings from now on, ok? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
For those who may have missed it, here is a repost of.......

A POLL question:

"Who here still condones the "Uncle Ira" et al gang's egregiously Anti-Science-Ethics tactic of using a bot-ratings system to vote '1s' and '5s' based on a programmed list of usernames and irrespective of posted content?"
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2014
A POLL question:
"Who blab blah blah content?"
BETTER POLL QUESTION:

Who here would like RealityCheck to actually produce his 8 reasons why the BICEP2 paper was flawed, with reasons why he considered them the way that he did? (eg. systemic, fatal, procedural, flaws, etc)

BEST POLL YET:

Who here would like to see RealityCheck GO AWAY for spamming/trolling given his 116 empty content posts above?
@ Captain. Keep up the good work. Critics should never be immune to being criticized
@Q-Star
Thank you. I will do my best to insure everyone can see his complete lack of any proof or science content
RC has some delusion...but his constant displays of emotion bordering on hysteria ... Wise men don't throw tantrums
Wise men also don't mind correcting themselves, nor accepting reality. Throws RC out of the "wise" category.

His delusions are fascinating given the blatant overwhelming evidence against him visible to all

Take care yall... on the road
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2014
"Who here still condones the "Uncle Ira" et al gang's egregiously Anti-Science-Ethics tactic of using a bot-ratings system to vote '1s' and '5s' based on a programmed list of usernames and irrespective of posted content?"

Sorry RC. There is no Anti-science ethic tactic, bot-rating of any programmed list.
You have not posted any scientific content, therefore, your comment is moot.
And - for one who is so busy at other things, you sure find a lot of time to illustrate paranoia in these threads.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2014
BETTER POLL QUESTION:

Who here would like RealityCheck to actually produce his 8 reasons why the BICEP2 paper was flawed, with reasons why he considered them the way that he did? (eg. systemic, fatal, procedural, flaws, etc)

My hand is raised.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
Hi Whyde. :)
Sorry RC. There is no Anti-science ethic tactic, bot-rating of any programmed list. You have not posted any scientific content, therefore, your comment is moot.

Pull the other one!

Evidence? So the previously-many-times-pointed-out pattern in the ratings page of "Unlce Ira" almost immediate automatic-1s-or-5s irrespective of post content, round the clock and across many threads isn't evidence enough for you?

Man, you must be blind or blind drunk to even think of suggesting that rationalization for ignoring the the elephant in the room. :)

And - for one who is so busy at other things, you sure find a lot of time to illustrate paranoia in these threads.
This matter has been mostly constrained to this one thread now, silly. Has that escaped your 'artist's eye' and 'objective observational powers' too?

Is the concept of 'doing proper due diligence' a dead concept for the 'modern crop' of internet sillies? Sorry Whyde, but your lack of proper due diligence is showing. A pity your objectivity seems to have lowered to the level of those UNCRITICAL BIASED READING 'mainstream groupie' gullibles who fell hook-line-and-sinker for the flawed BICEP2 'work/claims' at the time. Not good for an artist, to 'run' with Uncle Ira-and-his-Ventriloquist-Dummy bot-rating BullS'hit gang.

And I can always find time (and take a break from my other work) to expose, counter,and defend against, such scumbags infesting the forums and undermining mainstream science credibility more surely and often with their lies and tactics than any 'cranks' could ever manage. They are an embarraassment to themselves and to mainstream, as well as to any forums which allow such scumbags to manipulate and intimidate via such anti-science-ethics bot-system shite-throwing.

[My hand is raised.
Put your hand down, silly, before your own integrity is tainted by attempting to deny the obvious evidence in further unwise attempts at trying to defend the indefensible scumbags-as-proven-already.

The facts are not in question; the only question is: Do you condone the 'Uncle Ira' bot-troll-sock-shite anti-science-ethics tactics or not?

Think again before you post your answer, mate! Good luck and good thinking, Whyde. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
Forum, for any readers still not aware of the bot-activity in ratings page, please note that before the OLD phys.Org split into the the NEW phys.org (this site) and the REMAINDER original format site now called physforum.com, there was a serious problem with trolls and saboteurs using BOTS to rate and comment on the FEEDBACK/RATINGS page.

It got SO BAD that the MODS at the time decided to DE-ACTIVATE the whole feedback function/system.

So if anyone NOW tries to pretend to YOU that "It can't happen here", then tell them they are deluding themselves. :)

Good luck and good thinking, Forum! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2014
Poor, poor, poor Captn Hysterical Hypocrite and Ventriloquist's Dummy. :)

For the love of all things science and humanity, will SOMEONE who CARES about the Captn at all, point out to him the MANY times it has been explained that I had withdrawn from science discussion for all the reasons clearly stated to this tragically (and possibly criminally) stupid Captn Twat more than once now! And that I ONLY made COMMENT "for the phys.org record" and made NO 'claims' to pursue here; but merely SUGGESTED he do his OWN 'proper due diligence', for the 'flaw' reasons alluded to! How OBTUSE scary-silly is this Captn, anyway, if he can't keep that in mind from one post to the next, and continues his 'loopy-bot' inanities pretending to be 'sane'?
Who here would like to see RealityCheck GO AWAY for spamming/trolling given his 116 empty content posts above?

You and your Uncle Ira 'bot-friend', for 'one', obviously. Idiot. Now, how many have raised their hands in MY poll, Captn/Uncle Ira? None.

See? No-one condones your Cpatn/UncleIra stupid bot antics because your lame stupidity is as anti-science-ethics as it gets.

And have you counted the number of your OWN 'Hypocritial Hysterics and Lies' posts which keeps me coming back to expose, counter and defend against, Captn-idiot-job? Pah.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
For those who may have missed it, here is a repost of.......

A POLL question:

"Who here still condones the "Uncle Ira" et al gang's egregiously Anti-Science-Ethics tactic of using a bot-ratings system to vote '1s' and '5s' based on a programmed list of usernames and irrespective of posted content?"

And again, Forum, for any readers still not aware of the bot-activity in ratings page, please note that before the OLD phys.Org split into the the NEW phys.org (this site) and the REMAINDER original format site now called physforum.com, there was a serious problem with trolls and saboteurs using BOTS to rate and comment on the FEEDBACK/RATINGS page.

It got SO BAD that the MODS at the time decided to DE-ACTIVATE the whole feedback function/system, and is INACTIVATED to THIS day still over at physforum.com because of a well-known crazy who operated the bot, and posted there under a sock after he was perma-banned for SABOTAGE-by-BOT!

So if anyone NOW tries to pretend to YOU that "It can't happen here", then tell them they are deluding themselves. :)

Good luck and good thinking, Forum! :)
Dr_toad
Jul 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
Dr_toad. :)
And I can always find time (and take a break from my other work) to expose, counter,and defend against, such scumbags infesting the forums


Oooh, RC! Our hero! Saving us from scumbags!

Oh, thank you, RC!


The Forum notes well that you deny none of the evidence/accusation of the PROVEN bot-rating activity here now, and over at the physforum site in the past which necessitated deactivation of their feedback system.....because you can't; not without looking even more silly than you already have been in this so far.

Give up the 'smart-aleck evasions' and just apologize and move on, mate. :)

Dr_toad
Jul 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
Hey, Dr_toad, whatsamatter diddums; your internet-forums-troll-gang 'running games' with the 'usual suspects' mod-troll-bot-operating loonies coming unstuck now they are being exposed again? Tough. :)
Fuck yourself, "mate".
And such a 'scientist' you are, using such high-level 'scientific rebuttals' like that against the evidence/accusations already PROVEN and which you can't deny! As the forum notes well AGAIN.:)

Hey toady, that Captn Hysterical Hypocrite was just driveling a few posts back...
WHY people believe in things when the empirical data in their face proves them wrong, and how they react, how they defend against the reality that encroaches upon their faith/fantasy world, and how their delusions integrate themselves into their every day world
He must have been talking about YOU, hey? Now you can't deny the reality-based evidence supporting my accusations about you gang of trolling idiots, you "react" with hysterically hypocritical and oh-so-lame 'smart aleck evasions' like those latest two posts! Perfect. :)

And toady, please DO try not to keep calling others 'insane' if you yourself are 'in denial' like that. M'kay? "People in glass houses" and all that. :)

Look, silly, why don't you quit your silliness while you're behind; and go do some ORIGINAL THINKING on the universal phenomena FOR YOURSELF instead of just 'toeing the line' from 'mainstream right or wrong' (like that BICEP2 fiasco). Maybe then you might realize that SOME of those whom you call 'insane' may KNOW MORE OF THE REALITY PHYSICS/MECHANISMSTHAN YOU DO as things stand in your own poor/parroted 'understanding' of things which you keep trolling at.

Just apologize and move on, Dr_toad, so all can be forgiven and forgot of your silliness to date. Good luck and good thinking, toady. :)
Dr_toad
Jul 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2014
Poor toady, you sound mad. :)
Fuck yourself.
Still 'in denial', hey 'scientist'?Captn was right about people like you denying the evidence and still 'believing' their own troll-gang propaganda 'despite the reality' you have now been forced to face. How long can you remain 'in denial' and still function 'sanely', toady? Give it up while you can, apologize, and move on, mate. :)

PS: The Forum sees you and Uncle Ira are still automatically 'bot-goosing each other' with '5s'. Daily and often and in open forum, too! Disgusting habit. Yuk.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
For those who may have missed it, here is a repost of.......

A POLL question:

"Who here still condones the "Uncle Ira" et al gang's egregiously Anti-Science-Ethics tactic of using a bot-ratings system to vote '1s' and '5s' based on a programmed list of usernames and irrespective of posted content?"

And again, Forum, for any readers still not aware of the bot-activity in ratings page, please note that before the OLD phys.Org split into the the NEW phys.org (this site) and the REMAINDER original format site now called physforum.com, there was a serious problem with trolls and saboteurs using BOTS to rate and comment on the FEEDBACK/RATINGS page.

It got SO BAD that the MODS at the time decided to DE-ACTIVATE the whole feedback function/system, and is INACTIVATED to THIS day still over at physforum.com because of a well-known crazy who operated the bot, and posted there under a sock after he was perma-banned for SABOTAGE-by-BOT!

So if anyone NOW tries to pretend to YOU that "It can't happen here", then tell them they are deluding themselves. :)
Dr_toad
Jul 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2014
A POLL question:
"Who blab blah blah content?"


BETTER POLL QUESTION:

Who here would like RealityCheck to actually produce his 8 reasons why the BICEP2 paper was flawed, with reasons why he considered them the way that he did? (eg. systemic, fatal, procedural, flaws, etc)

BEST POLL YET:

Who here would like to see RealityCheck GO AWAY for spamming/trolling given his 124 empty content posts above?

OR:

Who here would like to know WHY troll/spammers have the ability to comment 124 times in a SINGLE comment thread stating that they are withdrawing without leaving?

124 posts saying you are withdrawing from commenting etc...
124 wasted posts with ZERO content
124 posts of SPAMMING TROLL RC who was banned from sciforums.com FOR EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS here
http://www.scifor...list.php
proof in black and white (and some grey and some blue too!)
Dr_toad
Jul 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dr_toad
Jul 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
Hey, poor toad, how silly can you get? Yep, THIS silly!...
No, you are the one that sounds 'mad'. You aren't deluding anyone _but_ yourself. Does the guy in the mirror argue with you too, or does he offer you comfort? You're about the craziest fuckhead I've seen in many years. Thank God you're far away.
You're 'in denial' of the evidence of the reality already posted to the forum at large, but you STILL PRETEND 'it ain't happening', and that you are 'innocent' of what's been PROVEN against you and the rest of your sociopathic troll-bot usual suspects gang? Unbelievably moronic 'denial' state if ever there was, you silly toad. :)

And speaking of moronic silliness to the max, there goes "Captain Stoop"...Look, up in the Sky; is it a plane? Is it a bird.....YEP, a TURKEY gobbling his head off!

He STILL LIES with his HALF-TRUTH 'versions' to the Forum, using 'selected bits' in his CONFIRMATION BIASED way (shades of BICEP2!), as these 'usual suspects' gangmembers DO practically every day now while pretending with their 'contrived conversations' between themselves and their socks/associates).

PROVEN beyond all reasonable denial: The Captain and 'friends' are a bot-tactics group menace to polite society and mainstream integrity/reputation. Anyone with a shred of concern for their own sakes should take immediate steps to be shot of him/them asap if you value your own reputations, folks! :)

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
Poor poor Captain Nitwit, apparently NOBODY CARES about you enough to point out that you are driveling all over the forum floor.
Who here would like to know WHY troll/spammers have the ability to comment 124 times in a SINGLE comment thread stating that they are withdrawing without leaving?

124 posts saying you are withdrawing from commenting etc...
124 wasted posts with ZERO content
124 posts of SPAMMING TROLL RC who was banned from sciforums.com FOR EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS here
http://www.scifor...list.php
proof in black and white (and some grey and some blue too!)


You poor sod, it still hasn't got through your noggin that I have posted mainly to RESPOND and defend against YOUR CONSTANT DRIVELING LIES, moron.

Else I wouldn't have had to post at all, since all here now KNOW well that I withdrew from detailed science dscussion for the reasons stated before many times, which have still to 'register' in your 'programming update' schedule, you poor Captn-Dumber-than-his-Bot.

Will someone have mercy on that Captan-twit-of-a-bot and UNPLUG it from the wallsocket so it can't hurt mainstream reputation anymore than he has already, every day, while unashamedly 'bot-goosing' itself with '5s' in full view of the younger readers through here? Yuk! :)

Dr_toad
Jul 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2014
Oh dear, you've let the cat out of the bag NOW, silly toad, with this....
Everybody really is against you and we have an internet that you can't see. We laugh and make fun of you (Yes, just you!) all day long.
So, silly toad, who/what exactly IS this Dark-Internet-troll-gang-of-"We" you have just BETRAYED with that 'Freudian slip', hmm? ROTFLMAO

That is about as stupid, unwitting, and quite PERFECT an ADMISSION OF GUILT, and perpetrator-provided CONFIRMATION that I have been RIGHT about you and your 'internet-daisy-chain-of-mutual-goosers' ALL ALONG. ROTFLMAO still!

Give it up, mate, your incompetence and insensibility and just plain anti-science-ethics and hypocritical SOCIOPATHY is 'on show'. Your ASS is now NAKED of any 'justification' whatsoever, as all GENUINE FORUM readers/members can see plainly for themselves, now that you've 'come clean by Freudian Slip accident'.

Now how are you going to continue 'in denial' when you have just blown your 'cover', silly toad et al? LOL
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2014
RC.
You commentary is a reminder of the old proverb -
better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
Hello again, Whydening Gyre. :)
RC. You commentary is a reminder of the old proverb - better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt...
Indeed, Whyde. Perhaps the proven and now exposed self-confessed members of that 'Dark Internet' colluding, site-sabotaging mod-troll-bot gang could have done with your wise observation earlier on. If they had heeded it, then they wouldn't have kept opening theit lying mouths and trolling 'personality cult' half-truths and innuendoes about RC, hey? But they didn't; and look where their big fat lying troll maws have got them? Betrayed by their own lying tongues, running at the mouth with their self-serving 'versions' about RC, choking on their own egos rather than keeping their mouths shut and stick to running their brain for selfless objective science-and-humanity-ethical motives and ends.

Anyhow, Whydening Gyre, Forum, just in case anyone here is still unaware of what has just transpired above, that proves RC has been right and truthful all along about the internet forums sabotage by ANTI-science-and-humanity-ethics 'personality/lying' trolling scumbags, I now repost the latest exchange between RC and Dr_toad for your FYI, in the hope that all gangmembers of that self-betrayed 'Dark Internet' mod-troll-bot gang will now read it and take Whydening Gyre's above-implied advice to "keep their mouths SHUT" about RC so I don't keep having to come back and defend/remind the truth against their lies and half-truths about the person and the facts of matter in question in the BICEP2 suggestion instance.

So, hopefully for the last time, in the hope that 'some people' will " keep their mouths shut" so they don't lie further about RC and so make ever worse fools of themselves, here is the latest, and hopefully the last, repost of the latest exchang with Dr_toad where he ADMITS the existence, and his own memberships, of the mod-troll-gang menace which has been BLATANTLY lying and colluding against RC across the forums.....

@Dr_toad. :)
You just don't get it at all, you poor loser. Everybody really is against you and we have an internet that you can't see. We laugh and make fun of you (Yes, just you!) all day long. God damn, get help, you crazy fuck.

Oh dear, you've let the cat out of the bag NOW, silly toad!

So, silly toad, who/what exactly IS this Dark-Internet-troll-gang-of-"we" you have just BETRAYED with that 'Freudian slip', hmm? ROTFLMAO

That is about the most 'big mouth' stupid, unwitting, and quite PERFECT ADMISSION OF GUILT, and perpetrator-provided CONFIRMATION, that I have been RIGHT about you and your 'internet-daisy-chain-of-mutual-goosers' ALL ALONG. ROTFLMAO still!

Give it up, mate, your incompetence and insensibility and just plain anti-science-ethics and hypocritical SOCIOPATHY is 'on show'. Your ASS is now NAKED of any 'justification' whatsoever, as all GENUINE FORUM readers/members can see plainly for themselves, now that you've 'come clean' by Freudian Slip 'accident'.

Now how are you going to continue 'in denial' when you have just blown your 'cover', silly toad et al? LOL

That black-and-white admission of yours just BLEW OUT OF THE WATER any FUTURE claim to TRUTH playing any part in Captn-Hysterical-Hypocrite's planned READING BIASED 'study/report' about me, hey?

How can you be trusted al all after you just PROVED I was RIGHT all along?....that the CRIMINAL MOD-TROLL-BOT GANG menace infesting the internet forums EXISTS and COLLUDES against those who would EXPOSE them, just as I CLAIMED and PROVED already many times VIA INTERNET FORUM EXPERIMENTS.

Now I can again commence ROTFLMAO while waiting to see what idiot-bot 'denials' issue from the Captn-Uncle et al dumbass 'handler'.

LOL-LOL-LOL :)
Dr_toad
Jul 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
Hi poor toady. :)

Wow. Completely insane.
Indeed, that's what I was just thinking when I saw you post the above-quoted admission of guilt and then just NOW rate RC a '1' as if 'it never happened'. Denial much? LOL

Hey bot-gang-tool, your fellow gangmembers aren't going to be any too pleased to find out they've been colluding with an extra-big-mouthed, extra-idiotic "daisy" in their 'dark-internet-daisy-chain-of-mutual goosers', are they?

Toady, take Whyde's reminder of that proverb and make it your watchword from now on, hey?....else your fat mouth will probaly betray you and your fellow idiots-gangmembers even more thoroughly than it has already.

Shut up, apologize and move on toad, so everyone can forgive and forget you and your fellow twerps asap. OK?

Good luck trying to turn your character around, toady et al! :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2014
Sorry, RC, but that "repost" warranted reporting.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
Hey, Whydening Gyre. :)
Sorry, RC, but that "repost" warranted reporting.
Why? Are you averse to being shown the truth about Dr-toad et al, from their OWN mouth?

Whyde, unless you wish to be forever remembered as an 'artist' condoning/belonging to a nasty, pernicious, site-sabotaging group, now self-betrayed and exposed as a 'dark-internet-daisy-chain-of-mutual-goosing' gang of anti-science-ethics IDIOTS, then I suggest you take your own reminder/proverb to heart and keep your mouth shut, hey, 'artist'. See, this is why you may never be any sort of objective observer; because you choose to STILL 'excuse' or 'run with' the 'idiot pack' against those who have exposed that 'pack'.

Do better. Butt out. Move on, Whyde; before it's too late for your own reputation as an 'artist'.

This friendly advice/observation from me to you, Whyde: "The REAL artist reveals truth in what he observes, not excuses lies despite what he observes"---RC

Good luck in your future choices, Whyde! :)
Dr_toad
Jul 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2014
Hello, "Dr_toad". :)
RC, get some help, please. I'm not kidding at all. The stuff you've posted just today tells sane people that you aren't.

Please?
Too lame and too late, silly 'in denial' toad. Here it is from your own mouth....
You just don't get it at all, you poor loser. Everybody really is against you and we have an internet that you can't see. We laugh and make fun of you (Yes, just you!) all day long. God damn, get help, you crazy fuck.


For someone who 'Tourettes' mindless insults, calling others "insane" etc, you sure have a problem accepting reality when your colluding-mod-troll-bot-twits' own words condemn your anti-science-ethics so completely and undeniably, without any further help from me.

See what happens when 'groups' think they 'above ethical restraint' when pursuing their sad 'personal' agendas that inevitably end BADLY for such malicious idiot-collusion activities targeting a PERSON.

Now looks like you're doomed to lie in the bed you made. Bye:)
Macksb
1 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2014
This is my fifth post. Please refer to two Macksb posts near the start of this long thread, and two more posts located at a fairly early stage, probably in the first 25% of the overall posts.

Assume for the moment that my explanation of the spiral "pearls on a string" phenomenon is correct. (Helix, quantized, Art Winfree's law of coupled oscillators), The self-organized star clusters (pearls) and the spiral between the two elliptical galaxies (the string) would have organized at some early time. After those pearls on a spiral string were organized, the two stars would have continued to move closer to each other. The string, and the pearls, would probably lag behind. Pushing on a string is difficult, even from two ends at the same time. The article does not speak to this point, but I suspect that any such lag effect could be discerned from a close inspection of the data.
Dr_toad
Jul 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2014
Poor Touretting-toady.
Are you always drunk, or is there some other problem?
That's exactly what the forum has lately been suspecting about YOU, up to the moment you posted this Freudian Slip admission of your groups existence and collusion/sabotaging agenda against the person/site; to wit(less)...
You just don't get it at all, you poor loser. Everybody really is against you and we have an internet that you can't see. We laugh and make fun of you (Yes, just you!) all day long. God damn, get help, you crazy fuck.


...when you opened your mouth and so put all such wonderings beyond doubt!

Probably a combination of ego, stupidity, malice and just plain 'moronic gang' member degeneracy-by-association, with complications from diminished-responsibility induced by Drinks and Drugs, leading to your daily 'Tourettes spray' of mindless insults and expletives.

Not a good omen for your future mental state. The old saying says: "Physician heal thyself". Take heed, "Dr_toad".

Quit it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2014
Forum: Any readers here who want a good belly-laugh, just go to the linked ratings page below, and spot the 4-socknames-long 'dick-butt-daisy-chain' pattern formed by 'usual suspect' mod-troll-bot-sock gangmembers STILL 'goosing each other' in full view of the younger readers.

https://sciencex....k/?v=act

Hilariously insensible demonstration of what can happen 'when humans go sock-bot-ty'. LOL
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2014
RC.
Every time I've seen your entry into a discussion, it begins with (to paraphrase"" - "I see a problem with this line of thought that none of the rest of you can see..." .
Usually followed by some comment about how the methodology of a reported "discovery" was in err, because the established methodology is somehow conspiratorally squashing the REAL methods and discoveries are actually known only by you - and perfectly described in a TOE that you alone are working on, but cannot divulge due to - you got it - more conspiracies.
Then ALWAYS followed by shrill accusations of other devious and evil plans to shut you up.
Enough of that and people will want to not even let you in the room cuz it's, well, downright annoying.
You never took me up on my advice to go hang out with family or maybe take a vacation, did ya...?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2014
Hey, 'artist', you must have studied with the "Impressionists" and not the "Realists" school. That's why your 'confirmation biased reading impression' of reality is your own 'convenient imagery', not the reality.

I used to post objective observations and point out salient aspects of the phenomena/logics/ideas being discussed by others.

But no longer. I have withdrawn from even that, let alone laying out my whole ToE on the forums. OK?

Precisely because of plagiarists, scoundrels, trolls and just plain bat-shit crazy loonies like the Mod-Troll-Sock-Bot gangs infesting the Internet still (albeit they are having a harder time of it since I exposed/ridiculed them for all to see via my Internet Experiments which 'hook' them into self-betrayals, just as "DR_toad et al" have done here, and in the ratings page I linked to).

So, 'artist', quit doing the dirty work 'half-truths-impressionist' bit for those 'dick-butt-daisy-chain' idiotgang 'goosing each other' via ratings. They're scum. Bye.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2014
Wow... you sure told me...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2014
Wow... you sure told me...
and it only took 134 posts...
and in all actuality, all RC did was viciously attack WG and show everyone how ignorant she is

too bad it still doesn't prove me (or anyone else) wrong! LMFAO
Actually, all it does is continue to support my conclusions!

as well as YOUR posts, WG... and Toads... and everyone else who normally ignores her!
there is NO evidence supporting her conclusions at all!
especially regarding the BICEP2 issue. 134 posts of "i'm withdrawing" and never a proof that she knew anything. not ONE shred of proof.not here. or here: http://www.scifor...list.php
which has her banned for TROLLING like she is doing here!

this is funny!
I won more than $150 off this last set of rants!
I've already told the class what she will do next... so I will win MORE in a bit!
just gotta wait for her to post again!

3...
2...
1...
Dr_toad
Jul 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dr_toad
Jul 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2014
Wow... you sure told me...
and it only took 134 posts...
and in all actuality, all RC did was viciously attack WG and show everyone how ignorant she is

too bad it still doesn't prove me (or anyone else) wrong! LMFAO
Actually, all it does is continue to support my conclusions!

as well as YOUR posts, WG... and Toads... and everyone else who normally ignores her!
there is NO evidence supporting her conclusions at all!
especially regarding the BICEP2 issue. 134 posts of "i'm withdrawing" and never a proof that she knew anything. not ONE shred of proof.not here. or here: http://www.scifor...list.php
which has her banned for TROLLING like she is doing here!

this is funny!
I won more than $150 off this last set of rants!
I've already told the class what she will do next... so I will win MORE in a bit!
just gotta wait for her to post again!

3...
2...
1...

Share the wealth, Cap'n, share the wealth...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
Hi Whyde. :)
Wow... you sure told me...

Someone had to 'friend up' and tell you straight, because you were obviously being drawn into the Contracting Spiral of Troll influence by the scumbags recently self-betrayed for you and all to see for yourselves. :)

And a word of caution, Whyde. The only 'wealth' the "Cap'n" can 'share' is a troll-shite mound of hysterical hypocrisy, half-truths and self-serving 'versions' which unfortunately the willing/gullible among the members here still fall for.

Before you continue with your apparently wilfull descent into that Contracting Spiral of troll-shite based lies, have a read of my post below re his DISHONESTY over at sciforums, as 'eumbled' by Tiassa, a MOD who has "told him" also in no uncertain terms.

Wise up, 'artist', before you end up as self-deluded and plain bat-shit crazy and dishonest as 'the Cap' who is a disgrace to all he professes about to others.

Don't say you 'weren't told' straight, Whyde. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
From "Dr-toad" to "Captain Stumpy"...
You're right, any minute now. Why do you think it's a she?

Who in the world would take that bet, anyway?

Why? Because this Captain of Dishonesty and hysterical hypocrisy is become INFAMOUS for his BIASING LACK of 'proper and objective due diligence' as to the actual facts before he opens his fat lying troll mouth, that's why.

Did you get my message, Stumpy?

More dick-to-butt 'dark messaging' BEHIND THE SCENES to collude in 'personality cult' lies and tactics, Dr-toad?

When will you ever learn, silly toad. Dishonesty like that 'championed and practiced' daily by this Captain-of-Troll-Turds is not on, silly toad, and neither is your complicitous enabling/encouraging of same. Quit it before it's too late for you to recover your own reputation, "Dr". Good luck with that. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
@Forum,

To see what this 'Disgraced Captain' is REALLY about, go to the link below. See for yourself that his Hysterical Hypocritical Half-Truth 'personality cult' Lying Rants have nothing to do with objective science or honourable conduct, only his OWN delusion of 'righteousness' based on his own political/personal BIASES and egoistic agenda at the expense of all that is true objective science and impartial humanity observation.

http://www.scifor...t3210390

Here is an excerpt (the full texts would be far, far, too long to post here in this comments format...but you can see the whole sorry Captain Stumpy idiocy over at sciforums for yourselves). The excerpt: is from a post by "Tiassa" ( a MOD at sciforums) in response to Captain Stumpy's DISHONESTY now exposed THERE as WELL, in all its 'disgraceful glory'....

From Tiassa, directed at Captain Stumpy:
Good for you, sweetheart. Now, why the hell should anyone give a fuck? I mean, you interject in a discussion with Billvon and then start crying about how people are misrepresenting you? Seriously, Stumpy, what's up with that? How is that remotely honest?

So let me make this clear to you: I don't give a fuck how many ladders you've captained, as it is irrelevant. Meanwhile, there is already a discussion going on. You are welcome to join it, but the discussion does not stop and reset to square zero just because Stumpy has arrived.

You get it?

Welcome to our humble bedlam. But if you are going to go out of your way to deliberately show such disrespect, I expect your landing will be a little bumpy.

And, for the record, when some dude gets away with murder in Seattle, I'll be sure to take it up with some dude in Pennsylvania.

Get your head out.


Now then, Foum, how many here are STILL falling for the Captain's CON about me and about everyone EXCEPT HIMSELF and his Hysterical Hypocritical Ravings about others while he is NOT FIT TO JUDGE either people of ideas, because that "Captain" is a disgrace to BOTH the UNIFORM , the SCIENCE and the HUMANITY.

Tell this 'Captain-of-Disgrace' where he can 'get off' and stop LYING with 'convenient self-serving' VERSIONS of reality as it suits his OBVIOUSLY INSANE TROLL GANGS' anti-honor, anti-science and anti-humanity agenda.

Good luck and good thinking to all genuine and honest readers and members here. Bye for now. :)
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2014
@RealityCheck

You are one dishonest creep. Reading the entire exchange between Tiassa and CaptStumpy paints a much different picture than your edited version. CaptStumpy is reasonable and Tiassa is just an asshole.
http://www.scifor...t3210390
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
Hey, Vietvet. :)
@RealityCheck You are one dishonest creep. Reading the entire exchange between Tiassa and CaptStumpy paints a much different picture than your edited version. CaptStumpy is reasonable and Tiassa is just an asshole. http://www.scifor...t3210390
Please note that I provided that link for you to read the whole relevant exchange for yourself. So my 'excerpt was not 'an edited version', merely a relevant 'point' for YOU to follow-up and go and see the whole situation for yourself where the Cap is acting dishonestly according to the MOD who 'rumbled' the Cap's dishonesty.

And ain't it interesting, Vietvet? Although I PROVED many times via Internet Experiments that some MOD-TROLL-GANG members are being 'assholes' when banning me, you 'dick-butt-troll-dark-daisy-chain' creeps jump to defend those SAME mod assholes and blame me, their victim.

But NOW that your 'precious fellow twit' of a 'disgraced Captain' is being taken to task by the same mod-troll's that have targeted me in the past, all of a sudden it's the Captain (the alleged victim according to you NOW) that you HYPOCRITICALLY choose defend against that 'big bad MOD who rumbled the poor innocent Captain Dishonest?

Pull the other one, mate; it has bells on! You stupid chain of stupids all studied at the same 'Academy-of-Double-Standards', and 'passed' with flying honors degrees in Self-Serving-Hypocrisy and CONFIRMATION BIASED reading.

Mate, take your silly attempts at /rationalizing, diverting and excusing your 'friend' the Captain's dishonesty and shove it. Quit your silliness and move on, Vietvet; so I don't have to come in AGAIN to point out your own hypocrisy levels which are worthy of the 'Cap' levels of same.

Bye. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2014
To see what this 'Captain' is REALLY about, go to the link below
@rc
still smarting because you got banned again for starting a flame war, trolling and blatant lies on sciforum? numerous people reported you for lying!
and when the MODS reviewed your post, as well as the links (the PROOF here on PO) they BANNED YOU for a reason! LMFAO

that is what will happen again... I HOPE that the mods look at your "proof"... they will see, in black and white and your OWN WORDS that you lied, you made derogatory remarks about the MICEP2 team, you could NOT back up your CLAIMS about the 8 flaws you seemed to find when NO ONE ELSE found those...
THEN they will see your 138 posts here and decide to follow sciforums: http://www.scifor...list.php

134 posts and NO ANSWER YET
this is why people call RC a troll! 134 posts and he cannot explain his "8 flaws"
Share the wealth, Cap'n
@WGyre
let me ask the group if it is too late to add a member :-)

@Vietvet
Thanks! it's been interesting
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2014
@RC
You are one dishonest creep. Reading the entire exchange between Tiassa and CaptStumpy paints a much different picture than your edited version. CaptStumpy is reasonable and Tiassa is just an asshole
@Vietvet
Well, don't attack Tiassa... likely Tiassa has been through some traumatic experience that has negatively affected the ability to be objective about certain subjects. This is important, as you can see by our discourse on RC's link...

Look at it from that perspective and it changes the whole outlook... THANK YOU for supporting me, though. I thought the same as you at first, but some research has changed my perspective a little.

and you MUST be doing SOMETHING RIGHT, Vietvet! RC is calling you names!

PS for "undefined" or Realitycheck, whichever she prefers...
about your sciforums issues with the mods?
you = banned
me = not banned

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2014
I've reported the last five posts of RC from this thread. Maybe it will do some good.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2014
With that, can we get back to the subject of the article?
Dr_toad
Jul 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2014
@Forum,

There you have it folks! I above pointed out Captn Hysterical Hypocrite's dishonesty (even at sciforums); and also Vietvet's double-standard pick-and-choose when defending the victim or defending the bad mod.

Add to that the continued irrelevance of "Dr-toad's" insipid idiocy.

Plus Whydening Gyre's apparent determined impressionist stooging for the dark-dick-butt-daisy-chain of troll-sock scumbags...

...and you have a 'perfect storm' of dumb denial, criminal stupidity and dishonorable hypocrisy!

Altogether, this mindless troll 'group grope' presents an amazing psychological study in sociopathy.

But be warned. Anyone seeing them out there in the real world should not approach them or make eye contact; but immediately turn, walk away and call "The Troll Pound"; because they may be dangerous (especially if they have 'the right to bear arms'). They're nearly over the edge of reason now, and may start shooting at whatever 'spooks' them in the 'state of denial' they live in.
Dr_toad
Jul 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
Poor toad. :)

See?


Yes, the Forum sees only too clearly the daisy-chain-of-mindless-twats in the ratings page here: https://sciencex....k/?v=act

When are you going to realize, you imbeciles, that as long as you, you cheap lot of 'bargain basement special on idiotic insensibility', persist in making hypocritical lying and conning attempt posts like those above, then I will be honor bound in science and humanity to come back in and counter and expose your 'exercises in non-self-awareness' which make you look so lame and washed up?

How much has your dick-butt-daisy-chain-wanking affected your 'integrity'? Let's just see.

Wait for 'it', Forum, wait for 'it'......

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2014
They're nearly over the edge of reason now, and may start shooting at whatever 'spooks' them in the 'state of denial' they live in.

There's a term for this - transference.
Please seek counseling immediately, RC.

And to the rest of the commenters. Just look away and do not respond at all to any comment RC makes. It only goads him on.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2014
Hi Whyde. :)
There's a term for this - transference.
Please seek counseling immediately, RC.
There's a term for what you just did, Whyde. It's 'projection'. So not only are you 'in denial' state of 'dumbass', you're now 'projecting' your sorry dumbassness onto the one who pointed it out to you and the Forum.

And to the rest of the commenters. Just look away and do not respond at all to any comment RC makes. It only goads him on.
Finally. At least you aren't as stupid as the rest of that 'troll gang'. You have realized that if you/they stop concocting lying half-truth 'versions' about what went down, then I won't have to come back in to defend/counter and expose you/them.

But next time, leave out the attempt at 'in denial state rationalizing' of your propensity to 'project' when a friend "tells you straight"....for your own good. Ok?

So, again, Forum (and Whyde): Goodbye, Good luck and Good thinking! :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2014
They're nearly over the edge of reason now, and may start shooting at whatever 'spooks' them in the 'state of denial' they live in.

There's a term for this - transference.
Please seek counseling immediately, RC.

And to the rest of the commenters. Just look away and do not respond at all to any comment RC makes. It only goads him on.
@W Gyre
You are right. 137 posts should have been enough to get a point across, but still this TROLL idiot can't seem to answer what she saw or define those 8 points for BICEP2... so leaving her alone is best.

It will not stop her from posting her lies, however... you can see above that she uses transference as well as her projection onto others as excuses for her behaviour... that is WHY she was banned on the http://www.scifor...list.php site
go here: http://saposjoint...rtal.php get a profile and look me up
I am user: TruckCaptainStumpy
I can share some interesting info!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2014
@Forum, That's what happens when uncomprehending buffoons fail in proper due diligence before opening fat clueless parroting mouths; further exacerbated by his 'troll group wank' induced obsessive-compulsive troll behavior while posting on a site where adults and knowledgeable fold are sick of the interminable 'personality cult' crap which Captain-Halfbrain-Halftruth still keeps shoveling down the Forum's throat.....even after the 'target' has obviously exposed the 'troll group wank' activities!

As if the Forum Members/Readers hadn't long ago 'twigged' to the fact that Captain-Hysterical-Hypocrite is the selfsame "Uncle Ira" bot-name "operator" with "whom" he "converses" and gooses himself daily and often with '5s' in the ratings page! LOL

Can you believe it?...this poor Captn-FAKE twerp STILL misses the obvious: that I am a "he" not a "she"!

See?....not a clue, this Captn Dense!

And the only "transference" has been by 'self-serving version' idiots attempting to "transfer" blame from themselves, the perpetrators, and onto the target/victim of their 'personality-cult' shite. Insensible to their own sociopathic 'clinical symptoms', and they pretend to judge others? Hilariously tragi-comic!

What will it take to stop this sociopathic and insensible bot-operating Captain-Fatmouth from running his hysterically hypocritical 'line' here and elsewhere? No cure for what drives/ails "it".....except exposure, and more exposure, to reality.

It's long been obvious from his screaming-hysterically idiotic 'self-serving versions' posts, that this Captain Twit barely understands anything to any real detailed coherent degree or depth from either 'side' in debates, yet he still deludes himself that his shameless name-dropping and linking equates to proper comprehension on his part!

Poor Cap, he is an irrelevant 'noisemaking parrot' who apparently 'believes' he is fit to judge what is being discussed. Poor sod.

Don't anybody encourage this Captain Troll-Bot anymore, for his own sake as well as the Forum's....not to mention for the sake of Science and Humanity!

Bye again for now, Forum. Take care....and don't under any 'enducement' ever consider 'joining' any of the Captn-Troll-'Fake-Group' wanking-daisy-chain-sessions', or you'll go dumb as well as blind, hey! :)

Good luck and good thinking! :)

Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2014
As if the Forum Members/Readers hadn't long ago 'twigged' to the fact that Captain-Hysterical-Hypocrite is the selfsame "Uncle Ira" bot-name "operator"


@ Really-Skippy let me tell you a couple of things. I am an independent operator. All by my self.

And another thing, I been on my best behavior for the last four or three days and haven't bothered with you since you made the apology four or three days ago for me. So there is no need for you to try get things stirred up again with me. No more lying about me so I don't have to come back and deal with your dishonorable unscience lies about me being a message bot voting for my self.

And one more another thing. I give you the 1's because they don't allow the negative votes. Which one or of your postums deserves more than a 1? Show him to me and I MIGHT change him.

Do better for the science sake and wise up so I don't have to come back and deal with your dishonorable lies.

Oh yeah I almost forget, How the poll going Cher?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2014
Poor Captn-Stoop/Uncle-Ira bot dummy operator.

Too late, too little, bot-sock. Your long list of downvotes from a LIST of NAMES, rather than actually reflecting the content I posted----even when my own info/observations AGREED with the mainstream observations/position!-----proved long ago that you are nothing but a scumbag troll manipulating and sabotaging and conning the members/readers. Period.

So go back to your 'troll-group' daisy-chain-wanking idiots' parade in the ratings page. I'm sure Whyde and the rest of the Forum have by now 'recognized the pattern' of your group-idiots' daisy chain of wankers pretending you are anything worthwhile here or anywhere.

Twits and scoundrels operating bots and sabotaging people/discussions/sites is as ANTI-science-ethics as it gets. Self-goosing morons is all you have become. Sad sods.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2014
Can you believe it?...this poor Captn-FAKE twerp STILL misses the obvious: that I am a "he" not a "she"
nope. I got it... I just see that you don't have the cojones to admit your faults like a real man and fess up to being wrong, like a REAL MAN does... like when you said there were 8 flaws in BICEP2... and NEVER VALIDATED YOURSELF... or posting 139 times here with nothing but blatant lies and whiny "i'm being picked on" crap... you're being singled out because you are another idiot TROLL posting LIES which are PROVEN ABOVE, not only by ME, but BY YOUR OWN POSTS! which is funny, really!

that is why you got banned here: http://www.scifor...list.php
that is why you are being attacked in Phys.org.
That is why you whine about your ToE which doesn't exist.

good night TROLL
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2014
Poor repetitive-looped mindless bot-brain. We've gone through and past that already, but your bot-assed insensible cranium has resisted the infiltration of the info and explanations of what actually went down and why.

Your continuing self-serving 'in denial' dumbassed rationalized half-truths 'versions' is become more stale than the 'Uncle-Ira-and Me-are-innocent' gag! LOL

Meanwhile you've countless number of Captn-Hysterical-Hypocritical 'shrieking' posts, but the Forum has LOST COUNT by now.

And it hasn't sunk in that my posts have been in RESPONSE to YOURS to set the record straight and so finalize my little internet experiment exposing you and your idiocy out of your OWN fat mouths.

You self-goose and block-vote and bot-sock your way, and you STILL EXPECT the FORUM to BELIEVE a single word/rationalization 'version' you put from now on, now that you've been well and truly BUSTED? Just how SILLY as well as CROOKED is that 'intellect' of yours, Captain-Insensible-Troll?

Quitit!
yep
2 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2014
I get it R.C. Is pissed because a few of you are wankers and wants everyone to know it. Small minds do not stretch well.

Wow Macksb that Art Winfree stuff is awesome http://www.math.o...pled.pdf
I think you would appreciate David LaPoint's primer fields videos for his work with phase synchronisity in electro magnetic fields.
It is unfortunate Art has passed as his thinking seems in line with plasma cosmology it would have been neat to hear his take on it.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2014
...And to the rest of the commenters. Just look away and do not respond at all to any comment RC makes. It only goads him on.


(Sigh). Looks like that was an exercise in futility....
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2014
Hi Whyde. :)

Indeed, mate. You now appreciate what it's been like trying to get across to that Uncle Ira bot-ass and his little 'group' of self-goosing bot-asslickers all this time. I had no choice but to do yet another little internet experiment to expose and ridicule them and their sociopathic bot-assed antics for the good of the site and open science and humanity discourse without fear-or-favor being imposed by anyone with the intent to sabotage/skew the conversation with anti-science-ethics intimidatory and gang-mentality 'personality cult' lies, half-truth 'versions' and innuendoes which only bring REAL and TRUE mainstream science and scientists into disrepute even more effectively than any enemies of science or alleged 'cranks' could ever hope to do if the conversation is left alone to evolve naturally and not be censored, prejudiced or otherwise improperly steered away from objective, honest inputs irrespective of source or reputation.

Thanks for your efforts, Whyde! Bye. :)
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
Thanks for your efforts, Whyde! Bye. :)


Okayeei. Apology accepted again. Now try to do better and talk about science stuffs. Oh yeah, you should post up another apology to the Captain-Skippy and the Dr-Skippy too.

No more name calling or I will have to come back for the sakes of humanity and sciences and honors. You can do better than that all that foolishment. Do better mate-Skippy.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2014
Hi Whyde, Forum. :)

See, Whyde, folks? "It" is shamelessly still taking you all for fools who would believe anything issuing from these bot-operating creep(s).

This Uncle Ira bot-ass still tries it on, even though we all know by now that BOTH this "Uncle Ira" bot-sock AND its Captain Stumpy 'handler' are one and the same.

Both 'usernames' have betrayed 'themselves' by telling the world that they "worked on the barge push-pull boats" in the inland waterways of the Eastern US.

Sad, ain't it, Whyde, folks, when such malignant morons think they can STILL pretend otherwise in a continuing attempt to 'pull a fast one' on all genuine honest objective Phys.Org and other site members!

Cheers Whyde, Forum. Don't take any "wooden nickels" from these bot-operating creeps, hear? :)

Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
Both 'usernames' have betrayed 'themselves' by telling the world that they "worked on the barge push-pull boats" in the inland waterways of the Eastern US.


You tell the GREAT BIG LIE Really-Skippy. I never told anybody that in the Eastern US. I work on the rivers in the Midwest. The Mississippi, the Ohio and sometimes on the Louisiana-Texas coast. And it ain't a push-pull boat couyon, it's a push/tow boat otherwise known as a tug boat to peoples who don't know any better.

Now no more lying or I'll have to come back to defend the scientists, humanity and the honor of all the decent hard working rivermen everywhere. Do better Skippy.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2014
Whyde, Forum, there you have it, a little psychological internet experiment and voila!....from the dumbass bot-operating idiot's own fat lying mouth! lol

Compare the stories from....

"Uncle Ira" at Phys.Org:
I work....the Mississippi, the Ohio...a push/tow boat otherwise known as a...tug boat...


....from 'Captain Stumpy' at another site:
...working the Ohio and upper Mississippi on an Expedite....Tug...for ACBL,...


How this blatant liar and incompetent conman and mindless-bot saboteur-of-sites-and-discussions can STILL delude "It" self that no-one has twigged to his hypocritical lying idiocy on the net/forums is a classic study in NON-self-awareness of the criminally stupid and dishonest 'intellect gone sociopathic'.

Hey Whyde, Forum, now you know beyond doubt, don't ever 'buy a used car' or anything else from this lame-brained bot-assed loser Uncle Ira-Captain Stupid loser TROLL. Give it a wide berth! Good luck folks! And try not to laugh your arse off! :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2014
"Uncle Ira" at Phys.Org:
I work....the Mississippi, the Ohio...a push/tow boat otherwise known as a...tug boat
from 'Captain Stumpy' at another site
working the Ohio and upper Mississippi on an Expedite....Tug...for ACBL
Ira is an engineer taking care of the boat and engines and still works it... I was a deckhand, and only for a few months. Big difference...

Tell you what, SPAM TROLL BOY... since I know you are all MAD for getting spanked and banned AGAIN at sciforums... how about a TRUE TEST of reality!

ASK THE MODS at the sites in question to give you some info: tell them to contact me PERSONALLY.

OR YOU CAN ASK THEM for an IP check to insure that I am not a bot (fully within the capabilities of a MOD)
Ask them if I have the same IP as Ira (fully within the capabilities of a MOD)

you are basing your proof on hate and personal conjecture, not legitimate evidence
LIKE I HAVE ON YOU!

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2014
Pull the other one, bot-boy.

Anyone who believes a word you say deserves what they get from trusting someone who carries on "conversations" and posts "exhortations to continue" to that "Uncle Ira" bot-sock username proven to rate from a list irrespective of post content.

You're busted, "Captn-Ira".

How about YOU ask the mods at sciforums who PERMA-BANNED your "Uncle Ira" sock when you tried to insinuate that bot-sock 'username' into sciforums members list?

Amazing hysterical hypocritical shrieking from someone who has been well and truly busted and 'hoist by his own petard'.

And the only 'evidence' on the net about me is the record of my objective observations on science and humanity discourse...and of course, my record/experiments standing up to and EXPOSING/RIDICULING the MOD-TROLL-SOCK-BOT 'gangs' which were proven to be infesting forums. Their 'remnants' are still trying to skew/sabotage open science and humanity discourse irrespective of source/reputation.

Poor "Captn-Ira".
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2014
:-D you're so crazy... LOVE your conspiracy ranting on Sapo's page!
How about YOU ask the mods at sciforums who PERMA-BANNED your "Uncle Ira" sock when you tried to insinuate that bot-sock 'username' into sciforums members list?
never been banned by ANY forum! ask the sci-forums MODS... they can access the IP's and prove it... but you will NOT do THAT... it would ruin your delusion!

Hey, speaking of delusion!
144 POSTS and you STILL have not given the 8 flaws from BICEP2!

144 posts and you STILL say you are backing away from science posting!
144 posts means you COULD have answered BUT as we can see from your PAST pages, YOUR COMPLETE LACK of INFORMATION is standard!

YOU GOT NOTHING, but green eggs and ham! (and egg on the face)
THANKS for playing!

144 posts of NOTHING but lies, conspiracy and all proven just be reading them above! LMFAO
banned much RC/undefined? http://www.scifor...list.php

this is too easy and boring...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2014
Poor poor Captn-Ira-bot-sock-boy is still hysterically hypocritically shrieking 'in denial' and 'half-truths' lying 'versions' of what went down.

Here, Forum, this is what the poor poor Captn-Ira-bot-boy is calling my 'conspiracy rants' at Sapo's Joint:
http://saposjoint...art=1180
http://saposjoint...art=1190

The Forum will note well that thse are in another's thread specifically to discuss world political/monetary/military situations/eruptions etc. The Forum will further note that since I had all-but-withdrawn from posting on the net, including at Sapo's, my posts (very few in many weeks) in the abovelinked Sapo's Joint pages were about the downings of Flight MH370 over the China sea, and the downing of Flight MH17 over Ukraine. Note further that most of those posts were in REPLY to others. Further still, please note that 'my rants' (as Captn Hysterical-Half-Truth liar is characterizing them as) are merely countering information/suspicions about Russian-Chinese Disinformation Operations while they and their dupes around the world STILL fall for these distraction ops and continue with he anti-USA 'conspiracies' themselves! So I merely pointed out that the 'conspiracies propaganda' comes from Russia-China Intelligence to distract from their OWN expansionist/military adventures lately.

That this Captn-Fool can so mendaciously lable those posts of mine at Sapo's Joint 'conspiracy rants', simply because I choose to make balanced objective observations on ALL the 'players' involved in those recent downings, shows clearly the lengths to which this self-serving Captn-Moron will go; even to the extent of PREFERING 'conspiracies' from his own country...while DENYING conspiracies from Russia-China. Unbelievable self-interest-driven TREASONOUS dupe more interested in his 'personality cult' internet bot-troll-sock games than in his own country's interests....while Russia-China spread conspiracy disinfo against USA to divert attention from their own culpability! Shame, Captn-Dupe-Fool, shame!

And note that this Captn-Ira idiot STILL fails to acknowledge that his "Uncle Ira" was PERMA-banned immediately he tried to infiltrate sciforums with this 'bot-sock' assbrained 'username'. And that such trolls as he have computer systems and 'associates' all over who will COLLUDE in SPOOFING IP addresses and 'users' in 'the group of idiots' sharing their PASSWORDS etc to 'cover' themselves for when challenged etc. They ADMIT 'behind the scenes' COLLUSION against their victims, and they expect the Forum to believe anything they say? Fantastic twits if ever there were, hey folks?

And it still hasn't infiltrated the Captn-Ira 'programming' that I had effctively withdrawn from any science discussions, and that I would not make further science-related disclosures for fear of plagiarism etc before my ToE is published. How THICK and LYING 'in denial' and Hysterical Hypocrite is this Captn-Ira Stooge, anyway. He must register 'off the meter' when 'assessed for sociopathic tendencies and behavior on the net.

Nor has it got through that my 'bans' have been proven, and DEMONSTRATED via internet experiments, to be the result of MOD-TROLL-SOCK 'bait-and-ban' COLLUSION tactics abusing the mod-power/access they had.

Poor Captn-Ira-in-Noddyland, an internet 'personality cult' COMIC CARICATURE internet-troll, dumber than his own troll-shite, what!

If you know this guy in real life, stay clear of this sociopathic gun-owning/toting idiot, folks, lest you accidently cross him and get a musket-ball between your shoulder blades when he 'loses it'. Give "it" a wide berth on the net as well. He is 'armed and dangerous', if anyone is, 'out there'.

Good luck and good thinking for Science and Humanity, Forum. Bye again for now. :)

Dr_toad
Jul 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2014
@ Really-Skippy you got the serious mental conditions Cher.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2014
Forum, note the daily 'group parade' of 'in denial' bot-asslickers is once again beginning in the ratings page here:

https://sciencex....k/?v=act

So predictably idiotic that it beggars belief that they still 'believe' that anyone on the net not part of that 'daisy chain' of trolling morons is taking their word and their 'self-goosing' act seriously! Where do they 'make' such insensible clods and sociopaths, anyway? Are they even 'aware' of how ridiculously comic that moronic-bots 'daisy chain parade' has become; and that they are the object of ridicule by all genuine honest actors on the net? Probably not. They've gone too far down the road of idiocy-on-the-net that they've 'invested' their egos (and whatever is left of their pitiful 'intellect') and can't stop now, even if they are futile and pathetic to all right-thinking folks here and the wider internet community. Poor sods.
Dr_toad
Jul 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2014
The entire Internet is colluding against you now? Everyone in the world knows the truth, but they conspire to deny you your voice?

Piss off, or get some fucking help.

No, idiot. Only the ones YOU already admitted to colluding with; or have you 'conveniently forgotten' that reality-bite, you nasty little mod-troll-sock-bot-colluding lying lame-brain?

Your oft-repeated 'projection' regarding 'getting help' is all too plain an indication of your own psychotic 'in denial' state. Take your own advice, if it's not already too late for you. Good luck! :)

@ Really-Skippy you got the serious mental conditions Cher.
And so the Ira idiot comes along as predicted, because it's getting too 'hot' for these troll-mod mongrels. Too bad, morons, you made your sociopathic lying beds, now keep lying in them, hey? TRhat's all you got now. :)
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2014
Everyone in the world knows the truth, but they conspire to deny you your voice?


Well Dr-Skippy unfortunately the conspiracy ain't working to good. Just count up all the science and humanity postums he got here on this one article. I think the man needs some kind of hobby or something to do for fun. Besides making us the misere I mean, because ain't no denying he has a voice no.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2014
The entire Internet is colluding against you now? Everyone in the world knows the truth, but they conspire to deny you your voice?

Piss off, or get some fucking help.

No, idiot. Only the ones YOU already admitted to colluding with; or have you 'conveniently forgotten' that reality-bite, you nasty little mod-troll-sock-bot-colluding lying lame-brain?

Your oft-repeated 'projection' regarding 'getting help' is all too plain an indication of your own psychotic 'in denial' state. Take your own advice, if it's not already too late for you. Good luck! :)

@ Really-Skippy you got the serious mental conditions Cher.
And so the Ira idiot comes along as predicted, because it's getting too 'hot' for these troll-mod mongrels. Too bad, morons, you made your sociopathic lying beds, now keep lying in them, hey? TRhat's all you got now. :)


You really getting weirder on every postum Really-Skippy.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2014
And more irrelevant distractions from the Uncle Ira bot-ass in attempts to avoid facing the reality of EXPOSURE and RIDICULE of their little colluding troll games on the net.

How many sites has the "Uncle Ira" been rumbled at and perma-banned from already, apart from the most recent permaban at sciforums for being a sock-bot stooge 'username' trying to infiltrate the membership there?

So, anyone STILL KNOWINGLY 'friending' and 'condoning' this Uncle Ira bot-sock is, ipso facto, complicit and colluding with it. And those would be the daily idiots parade on show here:

https://sciencex....k/?v=act

Poor Noddy-Nitwits still haven't realized that 'the jig is up' for their 'innocent act'. Dumbasses to the Max, hey Forum?
Dr_toad
Jul 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2014
@ "Dr-toad"...
Enjoy your moment, nutcase.


Pity you and the "Uncle-Ira-wankers 'group' won't be enjoying it whenever future readers go to the ratings pages and see what a troll-group-wank-session looks like on the net for all to see.

It looks like this:

https://sciencex....k/?v=act

For shame. Y'all should've know better. Learn from this. Good luck in future.

Bye for now, Forum. :)
Dr_toad
Jul 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2014
Bye. :)

Wanker.

What was that hypocritical remark about 'last word' you made earlier, silly troll? Have you no self-awareness still, after being exposed and ridiculed in reality for your collusive-troll silly-buggers antics, silly bugger? :)

Let it go and learn from this and move on. :)
Dr_toad
Jul 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2014
@"Dr-toad".
I did.
You patently have not. You're still playing your mindless hypocritical ratings-bot games on the ratings page, here:

https://sciencex....k/?v=act

So, for the sake of all Science and Humanity ethics, stop your obsessive-compulsive games therein. Wean yourself off that 'bot-tool' habit; just switch off and disconnect that bot-program from this site, and just get back to sanity again. For your own good.

Good luck for the future! :)
Dr_toad
Jul 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 26, 2014
Screw you, loony. :)

Now Now. No more tantrums because you've been royally exposed and ridiculed for your nasty trolling-bot behavior. Just switch off that bot program and disconnect it from this site...and learn from this, that such compulsive-obsessive bot-sock-mod-troll silly-buggers on the net will be 'outed' eventually, from your OWN ego-tripping blabbermouths no less, as I have demonstrated earlier.

Now, be brave and just say 'no to bot-mod-troll-sock 'groups' like the one 'operating under' that Uncle Ira silly username here. It has been permabanned from other sites and it's not in your own interest to 'connive and collude' with such scumbags. Don't be so 'desperate' for ego-tripping/massaging 'companionship' on the net that you will stoop to associating with such known and exposed/ridiculed scumbags.

Let it go and learn from this and really move on; and stop playing the ratings games; for your reputation's sake if not for the sake of Science and Humanity. Good luck! bye

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.