Closed thread

[Michael Mooney]

Moderation Note: this post was moved from 19450 because the poster is correct—it was not in the appropriate thread.

 

From my post 212:

I'm still waiting for Qfwfq to re-open the "spacetime" thread and"uncork" those two posts so everyone can see my replies... as s/he said in last "spacetime" post:[/quote

 

The posts asked legitimate questions and I answered them clearly.

What's up Qfwfq? Maybe if you ignore me long enough I will go away?

Maybe, but it's not fair to let those posts ask me questions and not allow my answers.

Maybe you will delete this post too as not appropriate to this thread... which it isn't... and the gag will be complete.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Moderation Note: this post was moved from 19450 because it was off topic and in the wrong forum

 

Re: the closed "spacetime" thread...

There were two posts questioning me at the end and I answered them, only to be deleted and the thread closed. I opened a new thread on unfinished spacetime business and it was deleted. I made further comment in this thread to request re-opening and it was "moved" (to where I don't know... effectively deleted.)

 

Freeztar replied to my last post to him in a PM including my answers to him... which can now be shared if only I can find a thread where I will not censored/deleted/moved to som unknown place.

I can also re-write my reply to Boerseun... the other deleted post quite easily.

 

So, with all hope that fairness can prevail... where... dear moderators... shall I complete this "unfinished business" and be done with it?

Qfwfq is not responding to my several requests to release those last two posts.

If this post too is deleted... I am gone... censorship wins again, and Qfwfq is a tyrant. (Def: Exercising power without fairness. It was Maddog's inflammatory post with which he agreed as he closed the thread.

Please give me one small break here and allow this post to stand. No place else to go with it.

Michael

[modest]

I made further comment in this thread to request re-opening and it was "moved" (to where I don't know... effectively deleted.)

 

This is the private message I sent you yesterday:

Subject: Moved Post

Message: I've moved your post regarding a closed thread to:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/user-feedback/19615-closed-thread.html

 

You were correct that it was not in the appropriate thread. There's no guarantee Q read your post if he's not keeping up on that thread. For this reason I'd normally suggest a private message for that sort of thing.

 

~modest

 

If you are having trouble reading your private messages or following links like the one above then let me know and I can help.

 

The staff is discussing your complaint, so please be patient and someone will get back to you.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Thanks.

Michael

[modest]

Ok, Michael.

 

Your deleted posts have been moved into the spacetime thread, but it will stay closed for now and any additional posts of that kind (an attempt to carry on with the thread elsewhere) will be deleted. There was plenty of fair warning that all the off topic, repetitious, and rude conversation would amount to the thread being closed. Several members endorsed the measure, so it seems all-around best to leave the thread closed indefinitely. I'd add that many threads are closed when discussion has reached either a logical conclusion or an impasse—it's not at all uncommon. So please don't think your thread or that topic was singled out.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Qfwfq, ending the parent thread:

I reckon this thread could possibly continue whenever it should become feasible to settle differences that are due, essentially, to misconceptions. Should this ever come to pass, it will include the post Dick was in the middle of working on and the two in the cork that attempted to come bobbing back up. Fair enough?

 

How long is long enough to keep a lock on my last two posts in that thread and let me "settle differences that are due," which I thought those posts did, explaining the misconceptions to which I was replying?

There is indeed "unfinished business" there. My last two posts were my best effort to "finish."

 

Michael

[Pyrotex]

How long is long enough to keep a lock on my last two posts in that thread...

Michael,

let me make an educated guess.

 

"How long is long enough?" is probably the length of time it takes for you to realize, and admit, that you have failed to explain anything, so far. And to grow up a little. Jeez, Michael, how much whining and crying are you going to do? Chill out.

 

An adult -- with even nominal intelligence -- would have realized by now that being rude and insulting and arrogant was NOT going to make people cooperate with you, like you, or even put up with you.

 

If you were truly the "smart" person you claim to be, Michael, you would have adjusted your behavior WEEKS AGO. [if you are a psychologist, then why doesn't Operant Conditioning work on you?]

 

Were you truly the "smart" person you claim to be, you would have already understood WEEKS AGO that simply repeating over and over again that there is an "absolute now" DOES NOT constitute an explanation.

 

So, a word to the wise, Michael, stop whining, stop repeating yourself, stop insulting folks.

 

If you have anything more than your blind faith in your Ontological Vision, then by all means, let's hear it. Otherwise, stop wasting our time.

 

Shape up or ship out. I suspended you once. I can do it again.

[modest]

Moderation note: the above 2 posts were moved from 19450 where the subject of a closed thread was, again, off topic

[lemit]

I've got confused. Are those two posts, which apparently are better than all the works of all the religions and all the sciences put together, available somewhere now? I have so much to learn, and so little time, that reading those two posts would probably live in my memory as the greatest event of my life.

 

So, where are they?

 

Thanks.

 

--lemit

[modest]

Yes, they are available as posts #785 and #786 in the thread "What is "spacetime" really?" There is nothing new in the two posts. Literally, everything brought up is a rehashed and repeated claim made and discussed several times previously in the thread.

 

~modest

[lemit]

Thanks. As I suspected, the posts have nothing new. All had been said so many times that it sometimes seems no words were left in the language. It's amazing to see the conversation being reproduced elsewhere. I guess some people have infinite faith in their ability to persuade, no matter how many times they fail. I believe otherwise, and hope that if I start repeating myself endlessly a moderator will step in and stop me.

 

Again, thanks. I'm sure all of you must be tired of this subject and its threads.

 

--lemit

[Pyrotex]

Right you are, Lemit.

I don't know why I harbored any hope at all that Michael would suddenly acquire the eloquence and logical insight to suddenly explain what he could not explain in the previous 700 posts, but I admit I did. I had to look. It was the same tired, repetitious, redundant, redundantly repetitious same ol' same ol' as he had said before.

 

Did I mention 'repetitious'?

I would like to personally thank lemit, modest, QfwfQ, moontanman, and all the others who showed such incredible patience, tolerance and redundantly repetitious patience with our 'friend' Michael Mooney. Given the circumstances, I think you all deserve a round of applause.

[Michael Mooney]

I am really quite lame in the field of computer technology, and I just found this section and Modest's post #5 from two weeks ago with the info that my last two "spacetime " posts had been posted there.

Thank you.

That is all that I was asking for... that my answers to the last two inquiries there be allowed.

 

There is really nothing left to say on the subject for my part. I do think that my repetitions were matched by repetitions of "mainstream relativity science's" standardized interpretations of what "spacetime" is *supposed* to be (as moderators and others here presented it, "by the book"), *assuming* its ontological existence as a malleable "fabric" of some sort... as Tormod said in his reply on page one.... not that he used the phrase "malleable fabric" but gave the textbook version as a given without addressing the ontological inquiry.

That's all, folks!

I am still open to conversation in my "Transpersonal Psychology" and "Bang/Crunch Revisited" threads....And I promise to "be nice."

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

My following comments were in reply to a conversation between Modest and Jway in the theology forum ("science and religion reconciliation: doomed to failure" thread,) but were, as Freeztar pointed out, not on topic.

Since this would be on topic in the "spacetime" thread, and this is as close as I can get to it, this is a cut-n-paste to its most on topic location:

 

My example cites the *assumption* that "spacetime" is an entity that is bent by gravity... and expands, etc. As Doctordick has painstakingly pointed out, the assumption of such an entity or "fabric" is not a requirement for explaining the observations, and "the ontology of spacetime" is an ongoing debate among many scientists. Yet its existence is assumed as well established in all texts and websites (including Wikipedia) on relativity. This is what I mean by dogmatic.

 

Michael