Rob Singer banned

[redietz]

People don't publish papers using pseudonyms.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/q...it-for-my-work

Yes, it is possible to publish under something other than your legal name. A nom de plume isn't that unusual in academia

Uh, are you kidding? Maybe in the land of Trump, and fake news. An excerpt from your link:

"In practice, why would you want to? You would need to explain in your application why you had used a pseudonym, and I can't think of any explanation that would sound compelling. Even in the best-case scenario, this issue would be a distraction from the actual substance of your grad school applications, and it would probably hurt your chances of admission. Whatever you say, people are going to suspect it's because you are embarrassed by the paper or by your contribution to it, and that won't look good on an application."

In China maybe. Or Saudi Arabia. Pick a journal, any journal, on the shelves of Rutgers (in coach's neck of the woods). Write to the journal and ask what percentage of authors are anonymous.

Yeah, a lot of anonymous authors presenting their papers anonymously at academic conferences all over this great land.

[OneHitWonder]

Well, you have to figure that anyone who is amazed at nine comas in one sentence is likely to make up anything. And hope someone believes it.

This reminds me of something I posted at the Wiz's, a couple of years ago. Evenbob was lamenting the loss of his favorite actor John Wayne. Well, I posted up the urban myth story of John Wayne's colon having 40 lbs of black sludge in the bottom of it from years of poolside laziness. It took about ten posters until someone called me out on it.

http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-69020.html

In actuality, it was only about the normal lb or so.

[AxelWolf]

http://www.tzr.io/yarn-clip/d93e5539...a-568bb0b34492

[RS__]

Like semi colons;
not them damn commas - hell no,
But haikus are weird.



I hate poetry kinda.

[coach belly]

I'll ask again....What is your purpose here coach belly? You seem to just want to argue every single thing anyone says

I haven't made an argument in this discussion, I'm asking questions to collect information.

You're attacking the questioner, which of course is evasive, unethical and demonstrates that you are not a principled individual...aka a hypocrite.

You condemn hateful and insulting language from one member, and view similar language from other members as appropriate.

Isn't your perspective based on prejudice, that everyone is either pro-AP or anti-AP, and that you're simply taking sides?

Is censoring opposing thought a liberal or conservative tactic?

[AxelWolf]

This song reminds me of Alan and his relationship with Rob.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't think Gay jokes are appropriate. I also don't think fat jokes or alcoholic jokes are appropriate. I don't think anyone makes jokes about illness? I also don't think jokes about wives are appropriate including Rob's wife.

[MisterV]

Christ on a crutch, the spectre of political correctness strikes again.

Shit, everybody is afraid to tell good jokes anymore.

Damned shame.

[Alan Mendelson]

Christ on a crutch, the spectre of political correctness strikes again.

Shit, everybody is afraid to tell good jokes anymore.

Damned shame.

In private you can, because in private others would know it's a joke. But in text on an Internet forum? Can I see the smile on your face that would indicate it's a joke? When I read your joke on the Internet, can I feel your hand on my shoulder to reassure me it's a joke?

[OneHitWonder]

A schizophrenic, nonbeliever and haiku walk into a bar... Which asks for a plate of shit?

(I will post the answer, tomorrow.)

[OneHitWonder]

Non-believer = atheist ---> eat shit (or eat this) by rearrangement of its letters.

[AxelWolf]

Is it just me or does it seem like more people(more posts?) are participating here now that Singer is gone?

[Alan Mendelson]

Is it just me or does it seem like more people(more posts?) are participating here now that Singer is gone?

Actually, we have fewer posters now than a year ago. The difference is our new members from the WOV post more often. Only one lady posts here now. There was a time when there were four or five others.

[kewlJ]

Is it just me or does it seem like more people(more posts?) are participating here now that Singer is gone?

Actually, we have fewer posters now than a year ago. The difference is our new members from the WOV post more often. Only one lady posts here now. There was a time when there were four or five others.

This is a very typical Alan thing. A complete re-direct. He didn't respond to the question asked, but basically answered something that wasn't asked because it better fit his view.

The question wasn't about a year ago. The question was do we have more activity than 3 weeks ago when Singer dominated the site. And the answer is YES. It will take a while but as people who have been sitting on the sideline and people that pop in only occasionally, see that they can post without being attacked and belittled, they will begin to participate more.

As part of his re-direct, Alan talked about female members, which was not even mentioned. BUT, what he said was interesting. At the risk of generalizing, females are more likely to be turned off by the nasty, vile personal type attacks by Singer that have dominated the site recently. So in a sense, without meaning to, Alan confirmed that Singers presence here, significantly drove away female members (as well as male members).

[Alan Mendelson]

Kewlj are you serious?

[AxelWolf]

Is it just me or does it seem like more people(more posts?) are participating here now that Singer is gone?

Actually, we have fewer posters now than a year ago. The difference is our new members from the WOV post more often. Only one lady posts here now. There was a time when there were four or five others.

This is a very typical Alan thing. A complete re-direct. He didn't respond to the question asked, but basically answered something that wasn't asked because it better fit his view.

The question wasn't about a year ago. The question was do we have more activity than 3 weeks ago when Singer dominated the site. And the answer is YES. It will take a while but as people who have been sitting on the sideline and people that pop in only occasionally, see that they can post without being attacked and belittled, they will begin to participate more.

As part of his re-direct, Alan talked about female members, which was not even mentioned. BUT, what he said was interesting. At the risk of generalizing, females are more likely to be turned off by the nasty, vile personal type attacks by Singer that have dominated the site recently. So in a sense, without meaning to, Alan confirmed that Singers presence here, significantly drove away female members (as well as male members).

Alan:"Only one lady posts here now." I thought he was talking about you KJ. .

All kidding aside, I was thinking the same thing you were regarding Alan's response to my question. You pegged him spot on.

Let me rephrase the question and see if Alan can answer it honestly without adding in his BS.

Is it just me or in the last few weeks since Singer was banned does it seem as if there is more activity here on the forum?

[RS__]

Much more activity as of late, it seems to me. Also seems like threads stay moreso on topic than in the past. Not that they stay 100% on topic, but look at the recent threads started after Rob Stringer's ban. The topics about the shooting in LV have stayed mainly on topic and drifted a bit here and there. If Rob Stringer was still here, his first post would have been something about minorities, Obama voters, low-life APs, or whatever else his delusional mind wanders off to.

Alan, you're free to start up a new forum and invite Rob in, so you can read more of his wonderful online persona (unless you have a do-not-compete clause with Dan, but idk how that all works).

[kewlJ]

Alan:"Only one lady posts here now." I thought he was talking about you KJ. .

GOOD ONE AXEL! Give me a sec, while I recompose myself from laughing so hard.

All kidding aside, I was thinking the same thing you were regarding Alan's response to my question. You pegged him spot on.

Let me rephrase the question and see if Alan can answer it honestly without adding in his BS.

Is it just me or in the last few weeks since Singer was banned does it seem as if there is more activity here on the forum?

I don't know, maybe I am being too hard on Alan. I have concluded he is trolling and called him a troll several times. It seems incomprehensible to me that there is any other possibility for his continuing obnoxious behavior. But maybe there is another explanation. Maybe something IS seriously wrong with him. I hope not. Or maybe he is just wired completely different than everyone else, and his obnoxious behavior, which seems so intentional, is just an extremely clueless person being.....extremely clueless.

[Alan Mendelson]

Here's how to find out if there is more posting now. This post of mine is #51,607 on the forum. Dan should determine what was the last number post when Rob was banned then determine the rate of new posts. That will provide your answer.

Dan could also tell us the number of new members since Rob's departure. I count one.

[RS__]

How'd you come up with #51,607? Clicking on the permalink to your post it shows #53,593