Questions about Moderation

Yet you have claimed this “nonsensical proposal” on three successive comments.
I only repeated the data mentioned by yourself on the third one, as it highlights the catenary sag effect penalty by “lengthening the TRPT” (your terms) :

“The optimisations continue and they spit” is now becoming a “nonsensical proposal”, isn’t it?

Note that my last question concerned any model of Daisy you want, not necessary the model page 227 if you don’t like it anymore.

But maybe the problem comes from myself, the English language not being my native language. I am certainly unable to discern the subtleties that may exist behind the contradictions I have just pointed out, surely to a fault.

From all this it appears that I am perhaps not able to distinguish what is technical in your contributions, for example this one:

There are probably some hidden technical ideas: could you please reveal them?

I’m going to quote another message that seems to sum it all up in a concise way, so that everyone can benefit from the technical treasure you’ll be able to reveal:

Unfortunately my English is not good enough to appreciate this message to its full extent. Can you reveal the secret code opening the technical quintessence so that everyone can benefit from it? Thanks.

This is off-topic or something. You can try submitting the comment without it.

The topic is also getting messy with stuff like this. Off-topic commentary should go somewhere else, or flag comments that you think go against the FAQ.

Partial moderation, as usual. You (the moderation) never respect the FAQ you invoke. Technical critics are allowed for some players, but not not for others. And it comes out in the end. In this post I was wrong to quote @Rodread stinky, non-technical comments.

The term “Fuck off” doesn’t need clarifying in long form.
It relates my wish to separate your presence from a situation to relieve annoyance.
It’s not a personal attack.
And It was in a personal message.
And in further personal messages, non public messages, I’ll be more of a rude ct if you continue being an awkward tt.
Deal with it.
And while you deal with it. Work on improving your arguments - the technical aspects suck shit

You don’t have to worry. You can insult anyone you want at any time. I won’t bother to put a flag, knowing that the FAQ instructions don’t apply to you.

Be careful though, more and more people are coming to understand that there is a FAQ for moderation, and a FAQ for others.

And when technical questions make you lose your temper, just yell: help! as you just did once again.

You can’t be more wrong. Incorporated or not, AWEIA is alive even now in 2022.
In Nigeria, France, Italy, USA, Canada, etc.

1 Like

You’re necroposting and not giving evidence for your claim.


  • This page was last edited on 21 January 2022, at 16:27 (UTC).
1 Like

That page should be removed for lack of Wikipedia:Notability - Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - Wikipedia. To propose deletion follow the instructions here: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion - Wikipedia or perhaps ask others to look into by adding the notability template: * {{Notability|date=November 2022}}.

It’s Joe Faust’s usual Wikipedia vandalism, or misunderstanding of its purpose, which we can see more evidence for here: User talk:Joefaust - Wikipedia Because AWE is or was niche, much of it goes undetected.

I have had two (2) highly relevant-to-this-topic posts deleted within the last 24 hours. There is no explanation nor notification from who is deleting my posts, and it falls into the typical motivation for censorship and silencing truth-tellers: covering up the truth. Is that what you really want here - a coverup of the truth? I’m getting really tired of liars on this site and the unknown scared-to-identify-themselves chicken-shit people involved in the coverup of the lies here. I’m really getting to the point that I do not think this site deserves the presence of anyone who has any idea what they are talking about. I think maybe this site is going the way of so many venues, duplicating the previous site run by these same liars, where truth is not welcome, and the theme is just entertaining the liars and promoting their lies, while covering up an attempt to reveal any truth whatsoever and set people straight. The entire history of AWE amounts to mostly lies and the ensuing disappointment as one after another, each supposed effort turns out to have been mostly lies, false statements, and broken promises, by people who real wind energy people commonly refer to as just “idiots”. Sad to see, after 14 years+, we have not moved forward one single inch, and we still suffer from people claiming to offer open forums, nonetheless not only tolerating, but defending-by-omission-of-facts, the lies of the liars who have always been and are still, so prevalent in this supposed field of AWE. I’d like whomever is deleting my posts to restore them and get off your high horse of protecting the liars that ruin this conversation and who turn this entire field into a joke. You are just doing the same exact thing as facebook, google, twitter, and all the rest have been identified as doing for several years now, and which so many good people are finally waking up to and protesting. Covering up the truth is not productive and it makes you as bad as any of the liars and their lies that you protect.

I guess this would be the topic where we’ve been discussing the notion of false credentials, such as past statements of Wayne having been “Director of Research at Boeing”, when in actuality he was not even employed by Boeing, together with false promises of future activity. The news today over on this side of the pond is about similar lies and false statements from politicians here, as though someone just noticed politicians lie. Whether in politics, or research and engineering, faking credentials and making false statements ultimately meet resistance, and are not good for the credibility of the individuals making the statements or the field as a whole:

Off-topic. Also barely relevant to AWE, or no more relevant to it than to any other field. You seem to want to talk about it much more often than I think is necessary, and that some person in US politics got caught is no reason to start a topic about it here. Maybe you could post this here AirborneWindEnergy forum messages index Airborne Wind Energy Energy Kite Systems where the people you’re complaining about were or are doing the things you’re complaining about.

Oh, moving carefully-written posts to a fake, secret “topic” that nobody can find again, huh? You morons running this site are about to lose another participant. I’m not putting up with this BS anymore. As Jesus said, “let the Romans have their Roman coins”, I say “Let the lying idiots have their idiot lying forum.” No longer interested.

And Windy Skies, whoever you are, I’m tired of your “no-reply” emails announcing your liar-nurturing censorship, and the retarded opinions they are based on. You people running any sort of forum are all the same: You CAN’T STAND open communication. You all come into it promising an open forum, but what you really mean is you have highly-limited thinking, and want to restrict the conversation of everyone else, based on your own limited thinking. WHy not just have a blog, that way you can just make sure every opinion is your own? It is just TOTALLY CHICKEN-SHIT to hide behind anonymity AND censorship, AND messages that cannot be replied to. You can HAVE your stupid excuse for a forum. Count me out.

If only this comment had any valid criticism of the research in question.

These, and comments like these, go against the forum rules or the spirit of them, so I’m going to give you a one month silence period to remind you of the existence of them.

1 Like

John, you just approved Windy’s intention to silence Doug on the forum for a month with a like.

You must understand that by doing so, you lose all credit for challenging Windy’s past, present and future decisions, including those to silence Dave Santos.

1 Like

You missed the point here, PierreB.

I am for discipline and love.

You are witness that I had my reservations about Doug’s various offtopic, diversionary and sometimes even rude comments under my posts most of which had been overlooked by the forum administrators hitherto.

I had even raised Doug’s matter between us off forum privately but both your good self and DaveS persuaded me to continue to bear with him.

I liked this long overdue action of the forum administrators which hopefully will mark the end of hitherto unfair preferential treatment on the forum.

Thank you.


@AweEnthusiast John, I seem to remember that it was the movement of your topics that was more of a problem than Doug’s comments.

Since you believe that one person, in this case Doug, should be silenced for not following certain rules according to the administration, you must implicitly admit the same for another person, in this case Dave.

So there is a contradiction in your attitude: you approve of an action to silence Doug and that you would have asked the administration to take, but you almost exclusively publish comments from Dave who is suspended and for a much longer period, and for not following certain rules according to the same administration.

Maybe it’s time to set the record straight and only post what you authored, like everyone else here. That would be logical and in line with your desire to be fair and equitable. What do you think?

1 Like

Relevant AWE information and appropriate responses are beneficial irrespective of the source. Just as we share information from news outlets and activities of people not even registered or represented on this forum.
I will gladly help Doug as I have DaveS if I have his submissions to which I concur.
I am mindful of the same risks as I post.
By the way, there have been other offenders in my opinion but I must leave final judgements to appropriate authorities.
There is no authority but of God. And every one shall one day account for the excercise of all such privileged authority to God.

The FAQ doesn’t give guidance on what consequence rule breaking would have, so that is somewhat arbitrary, or left to the moderator. Most often I ignore the comments or move them. The goal is to reduce comments like these from Doug, while limiting moderator workload. If anyone has a different approach, you’re welcome to share.