Request to moderator, please ban 'Joseph Chikva'

Discuss the talk-polywell site itself, including appearance, policies, and help-wanted requests from the administrators.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Request to moderator, please ban 'Joseph Chikva'

Postby chrismb » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:37 pm

I am asking that the member calling himself Joseph Chikva be banned.

This is because;

1) he thinks that it is OK to declare anyone who wishes to discuss Polywell to be devoid of knowledge of magnetics, or mostly anything else,
2) that he thinks it is OK to condemn anyone who posts a message about polywell, for no better reason that they posted about polywell
3) that when asked to correct his behaviour and refrain from posting, he does not do this, nor provides a rational argument for why his claims are justified. Instead his reply is, essentially, "I can interfere with your discussion as much as I like, because you are not a moderator"

It is one thing to say something out of turn, ridiculous, objectionable, whatever. But this is quite something else. Chikva is preventing reasonable discussions about the very subject and purpose of this board.

In regards this week's patent publication US20110170647, I have now uploaded the examiner's comments, and Nebel's replies, to a location on the internet, but I will not pursue a discussion here in the forum so long as Chikva is able to interfere with that discussion by saying no-one but him understands magnetics, or whatever else his Tourettes-syndrome posting style compels him to post.

When someone like this starts sounding off that no-one can touch him unless they are a moderator, there is only one thing to be done... call the moderator.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:38 pm

IBID.
And when chrismb and I agree on anything, there is something there.
At least send him, it, whatever, a stern moderator warning.

MSimon
Posts: 14330
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Request to moderator, please ban 'Joseph Chikva'

Postby MSimon » Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:01 am

chrismb wrote:I am asking that the member calling himself Joseph Chikva be banned.

This is because;

1) he thinks that it is OK to declare anyone who wishes to discuss Polywell to be devoid of knowledge of magnetics, or mostly anything else,
2) that he thinks it is OK to condemn anyone who posts a message about polywell, for no better reason that they posted about polywell
3) that when asked to correct his behaviour and refrain from posting, he does not do this, nor provides a rational argument for why his claims are justified. Instead his reply is, essentially, "I can interfere with your discussion as much as I like, because you are not a moderator"

It is one thing to say something out of turn, ridiculous, objectionable, whatever. But this is quite something else. Chikva is preventing reasonable discussions about the very subject and purpose of this board.

In regards this week's patent publication US20110170647, I have now uploaded the examiner's comments, and Nebel's replies, to a location on the internet, but I will not pursue a discussion here in the forum so long as Chikva is able to interfere with that discussion by saying no-one but him understands magnetics, or whatever else his Tourettes-syndrome posting style compels him to post.

When someone like this starts sounding off that no-one can touch him unless they are a moderator, there is only one thing to be done... call the moderator.


I haven't been keeping up.

Item #3 is of interest to this moderator. Some examples please. I'll take it to Joe if it seems serious.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Re: Request to moderator, please ban 'Joseph Chikva'

Postby Joseph Chikva » Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:11 am

MSimon wrote:I haven't been keeping up.

Item #3 is of interest to this moderator. Some examples please. I'll take it to Joe if it seems serious.

MSimon,
Do forum rules suppose personal insults such as "fool", "Mr. Arse", etc.?
Those insults were on the fair statement that persons complaining above (and not only they) do not know very basic things.

How you would look on if on nonsenses stated by respectful Chris I would answer with insults? As similar statements (about ignorance) from them I have got much earlier.
Nonsenses:
• Oppenheimer-Fisher
• Particles moving in beams do not experience magnetic force
• Scattering cross section on certain angle
• Etc., etc., etc.

So, unlike them my statement of their ignorance is at least better argued.
Or do they or any other think that I do not know abuse words?
But I did not. Unlike them.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:05 am

This is the first time I have EVER been personally insulting here on this forum - AND I STILL CONSIDER EVERY INSULT I THREW AS BEING WELL JUSTIFIED. Just think about that for a moment; I am prepared to throw out a sincerely held principle to only attack people's ideas and arguments, not them personally. In your case I have made an exception.

You provocations on this forum have been seeking this kind of reaction. Whether that was your intention or not, that is their outcome. I have totally lost my patience with you in a way that no-one on a forum has managed before. You are a leach, sucking out all the goodness from a thing just because your idea stinks and everyone here thinks so (and that is mainly because of you rather than the idea!).

Either you are staying on this forum, or I am. Not both. If the moderators want a forum with your inanery, then they will get the forum they moderate.

Just look at that thread you've made a total mess of. You STILL can't stop posting shyte to it, even after you have promised to be polite and everyone else is saying "OK, let's move on".

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:29 am

chrismb wrote:…your idea stinks and everyone here thinks so (and that is mainly because of you rather than the idea!).

Have you made a poll in 30’000 members?
How I should understand this post:
No, sorry, it's rubbish.

Two points to note;
a) do you really think that no-one has ever thought to direct two beams of fusible nucleii together?
b) the required energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier is many MeV of energy. At this level, if such particles meet they simply destroy themselves in a process called 'Oppenheimer-Phillips stripping'. There is no energy to be gained by this process, but if your objective is to get a pile of muclear particles then it does that.
c) At energies below O-P, energy-releasing fusion doesn't occur just because you get two nuclei to a high energy. The nucleii must undergo tunnelling. This is a probabilisitic process. Only one in a million of any such reactions would end in fusion - even if they were spot-on, head-to-head.

So the mission/secret-to-be-found is how to get the energy from those bounced-off particles to come back around for 'another go', without loosing their energy. They need to meet up a million times before they have one chance at fusion. It's all a random game, and thermalisation and energy losses are the big winners [to date, and especially in your scheme].

Wrong forum. Put this in 'theory'. Do you really think you are making history with this???!!!!

Not provocation?
Especially if my idea as such does not stink and only I am a bad man?
Was you familiar with me before you posted it?
Why I have not a right to show you your real place? And not with the help of personal insult, but only by idea criticism.
Or would you like to say that all you have written in above quoted post corresponds to physics?

PS: I have written:
Have you made a poll in 30’000 members?

But was mistaken as number of memebers equal to 67'086 :)

Betruger
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:24 am

This guy's just oblivious.

Maybe remove him for the duration of Chris' latest Polywell topic. It'll give him something to think about and the forum a chance to discuss it without incessant impertinent obstruction.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Request to moderator, please ban 'Joseph Chikva'

Postby seedload » Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:20 pm

MSimon wrote:
chrismb wrote:I am asking that the member calling himself Joseph Chikva be banned.

This is because;

1) he thinks that it is OK to declare anyone who wishes to discuss Polywell to be devoid of knowledge of magnetics, or mostly anything else,
2) that he thinks it is OK to condemn anyone who posts a message about polywell, for no better reason that they posted about polywell
3) that when asked to correct his behaviour and refrain from posting, he does not do this, nor provides a rational argument for why his claims are justified. Instead his reply is, essentially, "I can interfere with your discussion as much as I like, because you are not a moderator"

It is one thing to say something out of turn, ridiculous, objectionable, whatever. But this is quite something else. Chikva is preventing reasonable discussions about the very subject and purpose of this board.

In regards this week's patent publication US20110170647, I have now uploaded the examiner's comments, and Nebel's replies, to a location on the internet, but I will not pursue a discussion here in the forum so long as Chikva is able to interfere with that discussion by saying no-one but him understands magnetics, or whatever else his Tourettes-syndrome posting style compels him to post.

When someone like this starts sounding off that no-one can touch him unless they are a moderator, there is only one thing to be done... call the moderator.


I haven't been keeping up.

Item #3 is of interest to this moderator. Some examples please. I'll take it to Joe if it seems serious.


One f'ing interesting new thread on Polywell and this guy derails it, like he does all threads. For God's sake, examples? Read his posts. You can search on them you know?!?!

Yes, please put an end to this absentee impotent moderation and ban him.

You are a moderator. Moderate. "I'll take it to Joe." What a joke. Moderate for God's sake!

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Postby rcain » Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:06 pm

here's a really neat trick http://www.phpbbhacks.com/download/789 - should keep everyone happy.

be pleased to help you install it.

Ivy Matt
Posts: 681
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Postby Ivy Matt » Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:58 pm

It recently occurred to me (not necessarily in relation to this forum) that another neat trick would be per-thread banning, if that's possible.

As regards disciplinary action in general, I recognize that an online forum is the property of those who set it up, thus the moderators have a right to ban anyone they want to. However, it's my opinion that in a forum the members need the assurance that moderation is not selective or arbitrary; otherwise they will be inclined to go elsewhere. This means that the members are familiar with the rules (or at least have little excuse not to be) and are given fair warning when any new rules are introduced. Then, if a member has to be banned, the other forum members can understand why. I understand why some members would like Joseph Chikva to be banned, particularly in relation to his actions on the Polywell patent application thread, but it's not clear to me yet that he has broken any forum rules that haven't also been broken by some who have responded to him.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Postby rcain » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:35 pm

agreed, 'ignore users per topic' would be nice functionality - particularly useful for those threads where a couple of people are battering each other to death over something one has little interest in (excepting perhaps some eventual resolution), whilst leaving room to for other people to 'discuss' some another angle.

unfortunately no such mod/hack currently exists for bbForums, that i can find.

there is however an 'ignore thread' hack - http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopi ... &t=2104240

suppose you could combine the two (extra db tables are required by each), but personally i wouldn't invest my own time in writing it - though i probably would for some more up to date forum platform like WP BB.

i would hate to see anyone physically banned from this forum.

also agree, disputes often cut both ways - so if you 'put out shit' you better be prepared to take some of the same back again. most people seem to survive the experience.

though JC can be particularly irritating, IMPO, and ultimately messed up a particularly promising thread on this occasion.

LESS NOISE!

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:00 pm

I don't think you guys are seeing the writing on the wall. Chikva is here to irritate and get a rise. He/it/whatever has no interest in discussing anything at all, he just wants to see our reactions to his incessant interference.

That's why I have singled him out. There are plenty of folks here I have had disagreements in, both directions. But all of those still wanted to actually post on the forum. Chikva is just sore no-one was interested in his idea. It's not even the worst fusion idea I've seen, but the way he pushed it was deranged, and since then he's posted lots and not contributed one single, useful fact.

He's here just to get a rise out of us, whilst just walking so close to the 'maybe he's a serious forum member, so we shouldn't ban him' line that he gets away with it.

Wake up, folks, he's not here to be a 'forum member'. He's just posting away to see who he can irritate enough to get a reaction like mine, then to blame the other person for it. Allowing people like that free reign will lead to disintegration of any resemblance of reasonable discussion on the boards - which is exactly what he is after. He's a forum terrorist and he (and anyone else likewise) will pervert the liberties of discussion we hold dear and have us all turning in on ourselves. Do what should be done with terrorists - stop p!ssing around and press the NUKE button!

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Postby rcain » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:37 am

LMAO! :lol:

Lets face it Chris, it was pretty much bound to be you he pissed of first.

The thing that surprises me is that he's managed to piss off Georgio, who's normally incredibly civil.

I agree with you on the psychology - I think JC lives to get a reaction out of people for the sake of it and it infuriates me that he throws god-given personal opinion about as fact yet refuses to read what has been written on the subject. But then again, I don't read Russian.

I really think the best solution is a technical (and truly democratic) one - 'personal ignore options' - though i'v also toyed with the idea of a 'purgatory thread' where such people can be incarcerated together until they behave. JC meets Prins meets... (Rossi?)... sheer Hell on on a forum in other words...

I do emplore you though, please do not let the bastards get to you, and please post the remaining stuff up on the Bussard patent. I am looking for any clues (subtext), as to what might be leaking out of closed doors. It's all we've got to chew on at present regarding Polywell.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Tue Jul 19, 2011 2:46 am

rcain wrote:But then again, I don't read Russian.

I know you read Italian of Rossi. :)
For especially thick-headed:
This I found in theory.
rcain wrote:applicability to an account of LENR phenomenon in general - well, seems quite a good place to start to me - even if it is 'mistaken' in some detail, its working in the right language, at the right scale. maybe the 'revised- WL', who knows.

And this is a medical prevention for all follower of Rossi.
See our skepticism and debunking forum for recent threads on this. It doesn't qualify for the engineering forums - there is no engineering to discuss.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread ... ight=rossi

quixote
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 8:44 pm

Postby quixote » Tue Jul 19, 2011 2:53 am

rcain wrote:unfortunately no such mod/hack currently exists for bbForums, that i can find.

there is however an 'ignore thread' hack - http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopi ... &t=2104240


There's a greasemonkey script for firefox that can block an individual user's posts, although it's global rather than "per topic." I've tried it using the latest greasemonkey and ff 5.0 and it works fine.

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/83392


Return to “Administration”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests