On being constantly banned for "trolling"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magical Realist

Magical Realist

Valued Senior Member
In the past month and a half I have been banned 3 times on the charge of "trolling." But I fail to understand how simply making coherent arguments based on evidence, which I do in the Fringe forum, constitutes trolling in any sense, The accusation seems to assume that I am only pretending to believe in the things I am arguing for, and so posting them only to incite emotions and conflict. But never has this claim ever been proven about me no matter how much I make clear I really do believe in my arguments. So what is the basis for this continued accusation of trolling? It seems to me merely a made-up excuse to infract me with enough points (usually double the required amount) to keep me repeatedly banned simply because I express and argue effectively for controversial points of view, It is censorship based on content plain and simple, and after all how can we tolerate anything like dissenting opinions in a discussion forum supposedly based on lively debate and free speech discourse?
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
In the past month and a half I have been banned 3 times on the charge of "trolling." But I fail to understand how simply making coherent arguments based on evidence, which I do in the Fringe forum, constitutes trolling in any sense
Click to expand...

There is no obligation for moderation to be consistent; the standards for infraction are entirely aesthetic.

Oh, there's also this:

… after all how can we tolerate anything like dissenting opinions in a discussion forum supposedly based on lively debate and civilized polemics?
Click to expand...

That's your error, right there.

"Lively debate and civilized polemics", that's hilarious.
 
Because when you argue, you argue, not from 'coherence' but from ignorance. That's either sincere or feigned.

if you were honest and sincere, you would take to heart the things you have been taught by the hoards of people who know more than you about the subjects. And you would take it upon yourself to read up a little on the subjects - (a list of the relevant sciences has been posted for you at least a dozen times over the years which, at best, you ignore and at worst, you openly mock.)

Instead, rather than expanding your knowledge, or accepting something new, you double-down and LOL hard.



This behavior is all on-record, rehashed a dozen times over, and yet here you are, once again, feigning ignorance.

The post announcing your break actually identified the dishonesty quite explicitly:
https://www.sciforums.com/threads/ufos-uaps-explanations.160045/post-3729681

As is your want, you mocked rather than learned, here:

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/ufos-uaps-explanations.160045/post-3729514
 
Last edited:
If you really want to turn over a new leaf, try a few of these on:

"Huh. I did not know that."

"Huh. I looked that up and it turns out there really is some science behind what you say."

"Huh. It turns out critical thinking isn't made up and might have some merit."
 
This is a direct quote from the NASA website:

"On June 9, 2022, NASA announced that the agency is commissioning a study team to examine unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs) – that is, observations of events in the sky that cannot be identified as aircraft or known natural phenomena"--- https://science.nasa.gov/uap/

Are you saying NASA never said a uap cannot be identified as a mundane object? Do you think they would call it a uap--an unidentified ANOMALOUS phenomenon--if they thought it was a mundane object?
 
Because when you argue, you argue, not from 'coherence' but from ignorance. That's either sincere or feigned.
Click to expand...

You argue from ignorance too, it's just in different areas. Everybody does. The question remains: how does this constitute trolling? If I am truly ignorant about something, it doesn't mean I'm pretending to be.
 
Magical Realist said:
You argue from ignorance too, it's just in different areas. Everybody does.
Click to expand...

As i said. Yours is feigned.
Magical Realist said:
The question remains: how does this constitute trolling? If I am truly ignorant about something, it doesn't mean I'm pretending to be.
Click to expand...
I explained how feigned ignorance is trolling in post 2.

The part about not learning or expanding your knowledge when told something you feign ignorance of. Instead choosing to double down, mock and LOL.

You have some homework to do. Read this thread from the top.

See, you asked questions. You want to know why this is happening. There are answers. But you can't hear them if you are too busy typing a reponse to bother reading.
 
The part about not learning or expanding your knowledge when told something you are ignorant of. Instead choosing to double down.
Click to expand...

I am simply unconvinced of your argument and sticking to my argument. Everybody does that. It's what makes for good debate. Not folding to everything thing you claim and argue is not trolling. It is not pretending to do anything, It is simply being committed to my point of view and supporting it with logic and evidence.
 
That might fly somewhere else. You are being told, in no uncertain terms, that it does not fly here. You are not writing in good faith; you are trolling.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
That might fly somewhere else. You are being told, in no uncertain terms, that it does not fly here. You are not writing in good faith; you are trolling.
Click to expand...

How is that trolling if it's what I really think? Trolling suggests insincerity. What evidence do you have of my insincerity?
 
Magical Realist said:
How is that trolling if it's what I really think? Trolling suggests insincerity. What evidence do you have of my insincerity?
Click to expand...
I have known you for years . So has James and many others. It is all on record for you to review, right up till as recent as this week.

If you don't like being banned, stop doing the thing that gets you banned.
 
Please do not tell deliberate lies.
If you don't like being banned, stop doing the thing that gets you banned.
Click to expand...

The only thing that's gets me banned is arguing too effectively for views and ideas unpopular in this forum. That's also why I'm relentlessly attacked and insulted and belittled. But that's ok. Mine is the strength that comes from knowing.
 
Magical Realist said:
This is a direct quote from the NASA website:

"On June 9, 2022, NASA announced that the agency is commissioning a study team to examine unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs) – that is, observations of events in the sky that cannot be identified as aircraft or known natural phenomena"--- https://science.nasa.gov/uap/

Are you saying NASA never said a uap cannot be identified as a mundane object? Do you think they would call it a uap--an unidentified ANOMALOUS phenomenon--if they thought it was a mundane object?
Click to expand...
This is a little off topic and I am only just finding out about UAPs.
I am a fan of NASA and I am following the JWST, Voyager 1 Hubble and others.
However, there is a very nice breakdown of NASA approach to the team assembled to look into UAPs.
Who is in the team? Scientists, probably some of the smartest people on the planet. Physicists, metallurgists, engineers, pilots.
The video asks, are those the right people?
The video suggests that what is required is people who are experienced at looking at the sky, astronomers, ornithologists, flight investigation experts.
Some fantastic break downs by this team.
I may start it as a thread, give you a chance to look from the other side.
 
Magical Realist said:
Are you saying NASA never said a uap cannot be identified as a mundane object? Do you think they would call it a uap--an unidentified ANOMALOUS phenomenon--if they thought it was a mundane object?
Click to expand...
My bold above and below.
Magical Realist's linked article gives the link to the NASA report here:

The following statements are from that report:
"It is increasingly clear that the majority of UAP observations can be attributed to known phenomena or occurrences."

"Indeed, several apparent UAP have been demonstrated to be sensor artifacts once appropriate calibration and metadata scrutiny were applied."
"The study of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) presents a unique scientific opportunity that demands a rigorous, evidence-based approach."
So, that is uaps later being identified.
Never say Never.
 
Last edited:
"Indeed, several apparent UAP have been demonstrated to be sensor artifacts once appropriate calibration and metadata scrutiny were applied."
Click to expand...

Right. So the moment it is identified as something mundane, it is not a uap anymore. It is identified and mundane. There is no sense in continuing to call something a uap once it is identified. And yet many such uap cases remain. They probably sit in their own file somewhere, the one labeled "cannot be identified as aircraft or natural phenomena."
 
Last edited:
Who is in the team? Scientists, probably some of the smartest people on the planet. Physicists, metallurgists, engineers, pilots.
The video asks, are those the right people?
Click to expand...

The team should be balanced out by ufologists and others with decades of experience investigating the uap phenomenon. Their knowledge is absolutely crucial in understanding uaps in a proper context and gathering data from actual cases instead of just coming up with mundane explanations to debunk it. Here is a list of ufologists from around the world:

List of ufologists - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
The team should be balanced out by ufologists and others with decades of experience investigating the uap phenomenon. Their knowledge is absolutely crucial in understanding uaps in a proper context and gathering data from actual cases instead of just coming up with mundane explanations to debunk it.
Click to expand...
Yes, there should be a range of experienced experts to look at the evidence.
Its NASA so......well yes we expect them to do a good a job.
The video breakdown suggests their approach may not be the best.
I WILL post it.
 
Magical Realist said:
The only thing that's gets me banned is arguing too effectively for views and ideas unpopular in this forum. That's also why I'm relentlessly attacked and insulted and belittled. But that's ok. Mine is the strength that comes from knowing.
Click to expand...
That is obvious balls. You have no locus standi to play the victim. You’ve been trolling for years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top