IVARS, one of the most authentic, honest and inquisitive posters upon this forum will go into "negative feedback territory," sooner rather than later, by dint of PUBLIC "conspiracy" as manifested rather overtly within the feedback section of his profile.
He knows how much he does not know and is judged by those who think they do.
For them it is a game. For such as RPenner it is a mere nuisance.
All that comes to mind for me is the ballad of the rich man and the camel and the eye of a needle...
For any of conscience upon this forum, give Ivars positive feedback, not because he deserves it, but because he does not deserve the negativity that has been thrust his way, even by some upon this forum I quite like... and he knows who he is. ++++++++-+++
Best,
Raphie
For Zarkov it is a badge of Honour
??? Why would anyone want a pat on the back by idiots !!
as they say, there is a fine line between madness and genius, but only an intelligent person can identify a genius.... to the mob mentality, both are mad !!!
I love it
Fortunately I know all are mad, because I can prove it.... so stand up and put them down.
When you live in a mad society, the truly sane are considered mad
while the insane are deemed sane
LOL, what a time to be here and witnessing these idiots called human beings !!!!
Extinction is in countdown mode.
??? Why would anyone want a pat on the back by idiots !!
as they say, there is a fine line between madness and genius, but only an intelligent person can identify a genius.... to the mob mentality, both are mad !!!
I love it
Fortunately I know all are mad, because I can prove it.... so stand up and put them down.
When you live in a mad society, the truly sane are considered mad
while the insane are deemed sane
LOL, what a time to be here and witnessing these idiots called human beings !!!!
Extinction is in countdown mode.
Let me tell you the brutal truth Zarkov... the very fact that you are agreeing with me in essence will make others less likely to respond favorably to this thread. The problem?
"They" have power and you do not. Quite frankly, Z, you seem "insane" even to me at times. I cut you slack because I understand your anger... I really do. But this does not mean I agree with you.
We are "united" in the face of a common enemy: Intolerance and lack of willingness to entertain views outside the mainstream. Otherwise, however, I feel I have far more in common with such as RPenner than you.
No insult intended.
Best,
Raphie
P.S. Typo corrections from feedback:
Raphie Frank Posted: Today at 10:54 AM
Positive I almo[s]t surely disagree with you, Zarkov, about "this or that"" but I ad[m]ire your fight.
"They" have power and you do not. Quite frankly, Z, you seem "insane" even to me at times. I cut you slack because I understand your anger... I really do. But this does not mean I agree with you.
We are "united" in the face of a common enemy: Intolerance and lack of willingness to entertain views outside the mainstream. Otherwise, however, I feel I have far more in common with such as RPenner than you.
No insult intended.
Best,
Raphie
P.S. Typo corrections from feedback:
Raphie Frank Posted: Today at 10:54 AM
Positive I almo[s]t surely disagree with you, Zarkov, about "this or that"" but I ad[m]ire your fight.
The 'feedback' system here is a childish game designed to stop you all talking about anything seriously, or learning about Real things. If you expect it to be something else, you will be sorely disappointed.
g.
g.
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+)
IVARS, one of the most authentic, honest and inquisitive posters upon this forum will go into "negative feedback territory,"
Good. Quite frankly, I think Ivars is an idiot. Instead of taking the time to learn things from AlphaNumeric and rpenner, two of the most knowledgeable people on the forum, he'd rather kick some pseudomaths around with StevenA and Precursor562. He's been demonstrated things over and over by AN, but he refuses to learn.
Yes, he does. He'd rather do pseudomaths with the likes of StevenA than learn some real maths with the likes of Euler.
Yes, he does. He'd rather do pseudomaths with the likes of StevenA than learn some real maths with the likes of Euler.
even by some upon this forum I quite like... and he knows who he is.
Sorry Raphie, but I have to disagree with you on this.
Good. Quite frankly, I think Ivars is an idiot. Instead of taking the time to learn things from AlphaNumeric and rpenner, two of the most knowledgeable people on the forum, he'd rather kick some pseudomaths around with StevenA and Precursor562. He's been demonstrated things over and over by AN, but he refuses to learn.
QUOTE
For any of conscience upon this forum, give Ivars positive feedback, not because he deserves it, but because he does not deserve the negativity that has been thrust his way
Yes, he does. He'd rather do pseudomaths with the likes of StevenA than learn some real maths with the likes of Euler.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For any of conscience upon this forum, give Ivars positive feedback, not because he deserves it, but because he does not deserve the negativity that has been thrust his way |
Yes, he does. He'd rather do pseudomaths with the likes of StevenA than learn some real maths with the likes of Euler.
even by some upon this forum I quite like... and he knows who he is.
Sorry Raphie, but I have to disagree with you on this.
QUOTE (maxwords+)
The biggest sad day for pysorg is those two dunces:NOM and his minie-me clone TheDoc to stand up in the class room and heckling all the students writing essays(They seldom write essays of their own, they are dunces with un-typed intellect heckling posters
Hey, that sounds familiar!...
Hey, that sounds familiar!...
QUOTE (cream-pye'czar-hour+ April 11, 2008)
Look at the thread-less one-liner goon, he's NOMs `mini me' clone lol
QUOTE (PIATLAS+ Mar 17, 2008)
Four imbeciles N O M, TheDoc, Trout, and Sapo take turns at posting negatives. They can only vote once a week each and every week they add another negative and build up the negative total. Those four fools wont stop.
The forum administrators should expose the tallies of how-many negatives to how many positives MoFM give and expose how suck up their members with positives. Those four fools are jealous young idiots that give negatives because they haven't got a constructive idea in their heads. They a thread-less roosters that peck at everyone elses creative writing. But haven't got any intelligence to write an essay themselves. What a bunch of pathetic stupid `idea impotent' imbeciles/fools/idiots.
If you few think you have brains then point to your threads. You 4 suck Pooh's
Why, if it ain't my old buddy Chris Rivos. Apparently Chris is so cowardly he has to resort to using private messages to insult me; this is the second time he's done so.
The forum administrators should expose the tallies of how-many negatives to how many positives MoFM give and expose how suck up their members with positives. Those four fools are jealous young idiots that give negatives because they haven't got a constructive idea in their heads. They a thread-less roosters that peck at everyone elses creative writing. But haven't got any intelligence to write an essay themselves. What a bunch of pathetic stupid `idea impotent' imbeciles/fools/idiots.
If you few think you have brains then point to your threads. You 4 suck Pooh's
Why, if it ain't my old buddy Chris Rivos. Apparently Chris is so cowardly he has to resort to using private messages to insult me; this is the second time he's done so.
QUOTE (maxwords in a PM to me+)
GLUPI HUJU (In continental european languague) But you dumb arsed mispelt verything on earth insist that the differanly writen alphabet chareter L is a L when it is actually pronounced as a w) then
to prononce to a continental European what `you are' you should say GGWOOOPY WHO YOU!
glupi means stupid
huju means the masculine of CUNT (meaning cock)
so you can have some emotional fun in anglo cuntries pretending to to be an (auslander)(foreiner)
Just go up to to every male anglo and sar : WHO YO loll tyhe dumb *** will give you his name whe you actually called him a CUNT (Masculine style))
If you're going to insult me, do it in public, you coward.
to prononce to a continental European what `you are' you should say GGWOOOPY WHO YOU!
glupi means stupid
huju means the masculine of CUNT (meaning cock)
so you can have some emotional fun in anglo cuntries pretending to to be an (auslander)(foreiner)
Just go up to to every male anglo and sar : WHO YO loll tyhe dumb *** will give you his name whe you actually called him a CUNT (Masculine style))
If you're going to insult me, do it in public, you coward.
Feedback score? It's just a number... 
It does mean anything.
It does mean anything.
Hey, TheDoc,
A few points:
1) English is not Ivars' first language. As I understand it, he is from Latvia, so I would think he would get at least a few points on the "not an idiot" front simply for being able to express himself in even remotely comprehensible manner, particularly given the level of abstraction he is grappling with.
2) I dare say that a complete idiot could not generate the images that Ivars has generated and posted to the Tetration forum:
See: http://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforum/...thread-163.html
3) No one should feel, in my opinion, that they have to learn what others believe they should learn. Ivars has an unique viewpoint and is trying, again as I understand it, to learn that which he needs to learn in order to cogently express his personal cosmology. Assuming he speaks truth, which I believe he does, he is currently reading about Cantor and Group Representation Theory, so it's not as if he is not making any attempt to learn.
4) How about basic fairness, like one man, one vote? I've no problem, for instance, with you giving Ivars negative feedback, though I disagree with you, but I do have a bit of a problem with sockpuppets undermining the credibility of others with double negs. Can you imagine if we extrapolated the general premise to the body politic at large and gave all those who desired anarchy, war and destruction two votes at the polling booth?
5) IMO, Ivars is a seeker and a searcher with a relational artistic and visual mode of thought, and he operates, it seems quite clear to me, from the outside in and the inside out, rather than bottom up or top down. Personally, I have found him to be humble, patient, open-minded and quite willing to own up to his own short-comings.
Just some food for thought.
Best,
Raphie
A few points:
1) English is not Ivars' first language. As I understand it, he is from Latvia, so I would think he would get at least a few points on the "not an idiot" front simply for being able to express himself in even remotely comprehensible manner, particularly given the level of abstraction he is grappling with.
2) I dare say that a complete idiot could not generate the images that Ivars has generated and posted to the Tetration forum:
See: http://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforum/...thread-163.html
3) No one should feel, in my opinion, that they have to learn what others believe they should learn. Ivars has an unique viewpoint and is trying, again as I understand it, to learn that which he needs to learn in order to cogently express his personal cosmology. Assuming he speaks truth, which I believe he does, he is currently reading about Cantor and Group Representation Theory, so it's not as if he is not making any attempt to learn.
4) How about basic fairness, like one man, one vote? I've no problem, for instance, with you giving Ivars negative feedback, though I disagree with you, but I do have a bit of a problem with sockpuppets undermining the credibility of others with double negs. Can you imagine if we extrapolated the general premise to the body politic at large and gave all those who desired anarchy, war and destruction two votes at the polling booth?
5) IMO, Ivars is a seeker and a searcher with a relational artistic and visual mode of thought, and he operates, it seems quite clear to me, from the outside in and the inside out, rather than bottom up or top down. Personally, I have found him to be humble, patient, open-minded and quite willing to own up to his own short-comings.
Just some food for thought.
Best,
Raphie
Ivars is a crank. He isn't interested in learning, doesn't want to discuss things like actual maths he might superficially seem interested in and continually posts debunked nonsense.
He deserves all the negs he gets.
He deserves all the negs he gets.
You are entitled to your view, AN, but at the very least I would expect you to agree with the notion of one man, one vote. Fair is fair.
Best,
Raphie
Best,
Raphie
QUOTE (maxwords+Jul 5 2008, 11:56 PM)
The biggest sad day for pysorg is those two dunces:NOM and his minie-me clone TheDoc to stand up in the class room and heckling all the students writing essays(They seldom write essays of their own, they are dunces with un-typed intellect heckling posters(worse these pair of resident dunces are too stupid to attack the text of an A grader of whatever vintage. They just try to do a character assassination without addressing the text of any intelligent member, just heckle without a point. You Know I'm a big powerfull man at almost fifty and if i grabbed either of these goons by their belt buckle in real life face to face. Then everything anatomically below would be available for view in a tiny jar- torn out- I hate the character assasinator (forum-mafia) guys.
Chris, you are just sulking 'cos you've been booted off this site so many times.
You have threatened me with physical violence several times now, but I'm not scared. Nor am I impressed how strong your right arm is.
And on the subject of dunces. How's the tellymarketing job going Chris?
Chris, you are just sulking 'cos you've been booted off this site so many times.
You have threatened me with physical violence several times now, but I'm not scared. Nor am I impressed how strong your right arm is.
And on the subject of dunces. How's the tellymarketing job going Chris?
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jul 6 2008, 10:01 AM)
You are entitled to your view, AN, but at the very least I would expect you to agree with the notion of one man, one vote. Fair is fair.
Best,
Raphie
That's what the percentage of our feedback is. One person, one vote, but the number, positive or negative, is the total of votes for or against us.
So we have both.
Best,
Raphie
That's what the percentage of our feedback is. One person, one vote, but the number, positive or negative, is the total of votes for or against us.
So we have both.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 6 2008, 08:53 AM)
He isn't interested in learning [...]
AN, would you mind qualifying the above statement? I have a distinctly different view.
Best, RF
P.S. In a general sense I agree with your previous post...
AN, would you mind qualifying the above statement? I have a distinctly different view.
Best, RF
P.S. In a general sense I agree with your previous post...
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 6 2008, 10:02 AM)
That's what the percentage of our feedback is. One person, one vote, but the number, positive or negative, is the total of votes for or against us.
So we have both.
... but the average "idiot" out there tends to look at quantity, not quality, like a five year old who scorns the dollar bill for the 50 pennies because there are more of them.
So we have both.
... but the average "idiot" out there tends to look at quantity, not quality, like a five year old who scorns the dollar bill for the 50 pennies because there are more of them.
Hi RF,
I think it is fairly obvious even to the casual observer that this is a troll infested site. Looking at (say) NOM's +80 feedback we might expect some knowledge and interest in physics and in reality we would find neither. On the other hand InQuisitive (-30) is a lively contributor with a great interest in Physics.
I guess the people who have grown up with the internet accept trolls as 'normal' - we are the odd ones out - we still have the feeling "something should be done" - the reality seems to be that nothing can be done once a set of trolls have decided to attack a site and/or individual. The troll has unlimited time to devote to attacks whereas only limited time (and technology) is available to prevent the attacks.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I think it is fairly obvious even to the casual observer that this is a troll infested site. Looking at (say) NOM's +80 feedback we might expect some knowledge and interest in physics and in reality we would find neither. On the other hand InQuisitive (-30) is a lively contributor with a great interest in Physics.
I guess the people who have grown up with the internet accept trolls as 'normal' - we are the odd ones out - we still have the feeling "something should be done" - the reality seems to be that nothing can be done once a set of trolls have decided to attack a site and/or individual. The troll has unlimited time to devote to attacks whereas only limited time (and technology) is available to prevent the attacks.
Best wishes,
-C2.
How about a straight forward vote directed at the 'moderators' (who obviously do 'lurk' here in some guise or other) to say whether the members of the forum wish to keep the 'feedback', or not?
A yes or no will suffice.
g.
A yes or no will suffice.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jul 6 2008, 11:51 AM)
How about a straight forward vote directed at the 'moderators' (who obviously do 'lurk' here in some guise or other) to say whether the members of the forum wish to keep the 'feedback', or not?
A yes or no will suffice.
g.
I think Philip147 is the mod.
A yes or no will suffice.
g.
I think Philip147 is the mod.
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jul 6 2008, 11:34 AM)
AN, would you mind qualifying the above statement? I have a distinctly different view.
How many times has he posted something mathematical and then completely ignored anything I've said? Just look at his threads over in the 'Puzzling questions' forum. Behind Mr_Homm and Euler, I'd say I'm the best mathematician here and yet everything I've explain to him he's ignored.
Find me a thread where he's showed learning of actual mathematics and I'll show you a thread where you've not understood the maths in question.
What if I'm the moderator?
As all the cranks know (and people like Kaneda maintain to this day), I'm a moderator.
I LOVE my negs
by DOG, if they were pos then I would have failed in being a scientist.
LOL
I love the schism between the lay-idiot-public and THE scientist
when thems catch up, I might as well give up !!!!!
LOL
How many times has he posted something mathematical and then completely ignored anything I've said? Just look at his threads over in the 'Puzzling questions' forum. Behind Mr_Homm and Euler, I'd say I'm the best mathematician here and yet everything I've explain to him he's ignored.
Find me a thread where he's showed learning of actual mathematics and I'll show you a thread where you've not understood the maths in question.
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jul 6 2008, 11:34 AM)
... but the average "idiot" out there tends to look at quantity, not quality, like a five year old who scorns the dollar bill for the 50 pennies because there are more of them.
So you're worried idiots might not like Ivars? 
I long ago stopped giving a hoot what idiots think of me. I'd rather mop the floor with, and be disliked by, 100 idiots than pander to a single one of them.
I long ago stopped giving a hoot what idiots think of me. I'd rather mop the floor with, and be disliked by, 100 idiots than pander to a single one of them.
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jul 5 2008, 10:24 AM)
IVARS, one of the most retarded faking, dishonest and insane posers on this forum will go into "negative feedback territory," sooner rather than later, by dint of PUBLIC "intelligence" as manifested rather overtly within the feedback section of his profile.
They know how much he does not know and is judged accordingly.
For them it is a game. For such as RPenner is a dear genius.
All that comes to mind for me is the ballad of the perverted man and the camel and a willy, small like a needle...
For any of conscience upon this forum, give Ivars negative feedback, not because he deserves it, but because he does not deserve the positivity that has been thrust his way, even by some upon this forum I quite like... and he knows who he is. ++++++++-+++
Best,
(Animal)Rapist Fukk.
Agreed.
They know how much he does not know and is judged accordingly.
For them it is a game. For such as RPenner is a dear genius.
All that comes to mind for me is the ballad of the perverted man and the camel and a willy, small like a needle...
For any of conscience upon this forum, give Ivars negative feedback, not because he deserves it, but because he does not deserve the positivity that has been thrust his way, even by some upon this forum I quite like... and he knows who he is. ++++++++-+++
Best,
(Animal)Rapist Fukk.
Agreed.
Alphanumeric,
Ignoring what you have said is not an excuse for the behaviour of some of the sycophantic idiots who seek respectability by supporting what people like you post. I suspect you have some expertise in the area of String Theory but this does not mean we must all agree with your every post or risk ridicule.
As for feedback, get rid of it and take away their fun and the idiots might go play elsewhere.
Edward 3
Ignoring what you have said is not an excuse for the behaviour of some of the sycophantic idiots who seek respectability by supporting what people like you post. I suspect you have some expertise in the area of String Theory but this does not mean we must all agree with your every post or risk ridicule.
As for feedback, get rid of it and take away their fun and the idiots might go play elsewhere.
Edward 3
"Disagrees with string theory" is not something I would give as a reason for neg repping someone. I'm sure I know more problems with string theory, both technical and conceptual than anyone else on these forums precisely because I've spent time learning it. The short comings of any area of physics are most apparent to those who understand it, though the cranks don't realise this.
Ivars however doesn't discuss string theory, he discusses (or tries to) mathematics. Mathematics, unlike physics, isn't a matter of experiments or interpretations. 2+2=4 is never going to be found false by experiment or some new 'theory of numbers' coming along and making us change our views. Mathematics and logic are the only realm where proof exists. For instance, Ivars' latest thread involves claiming there's a smallest non-zero size for a volume in 3d space. I proved that false. Now there's no interpretations, physical theories, experiments or whatnot to contend with here. Given the definitions of volume, dimensions etc, it is wrong to claim what he does.
And yet he ignores what I've said, doesn't actually try to discuss it and makes no attempt to understand it. In the time he's been posting here I've never seen him learn any actual mathematics. Anyone who is serious in learning mathematics reads some mathematics. But cranks never do. They believe they can rederive everything themselves, better. Yet their mistakes in logic and simple, high school, maths are immediate. Just as Ivars' was.
Ivars however doesn't discuss string theory, he discusses (or tries to) mathematics. Mathematics, unlike physics, isn't a matter of experiments or interpretations. 2+2=4 is never going to be found false by experiment or some new 'theory of numbers' coming along and making us change our views. Mathematics and logic are the only realm where proof exists. For instance, Ivars' latest thread involves claiming there's a smallest non-zero size for a volume in 3d space. I proved that false. Now there's no interpretations, physical theories, experiments or whatnot to contend with here. Given the definitions of volume, dimensions etc, it is wrong to claim what he does.
And yet he ignores what I've said, doesn't actually try to discuss it and makes no attempt to understand it. In the time he's been posting here I've never seen him learn any actual mathematics. Anyone who is serious in learning mathematics reads some mathematics. But cranks never do. They believe they can rederive everything themselves, better. Yet their mistakes in logic and simple, high school, maths are immediate. Just as Ivars' was.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jul 6 2008, 11:51 AM)
How about a straight forward vote directed at the 'moderators' (who obviously do 'lurk' here in some guise or other) to say whether the members of the forum wish to keep the 'feedback', or not?
A yes or no will suffice.
What if I'm the moderator?
A yes or no will suffice.
What if I'm the moderator?
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jul 6 2008, 05:19 PM)
What if I'm the moderator?
As all the cranks know (and people like Kaneda maintain to this day), I'm a moderator.
QUOTE (Delia+Jul 6 2008, 02:58 PM)
Agreed.
Hey Delia, after reviewing your recent posting history, if I were RPenner, I would welcome your praise about as much as I imagine Barack Obama might welcome the support of Louis Farrakhan...
===========================================================
Obama's Minister Honored Farrakhan
Monday, January 14, 2008 7:49 PM
Barack Obama prays during services at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
Barack Obama’s longtime minister, mentor, and sounding board has been a key supporter of Louis Farrakhan and last month honored the Nation of Islam leader for lifetime achievement.
Farrakhan has repeatedly made hate-filled statements targeting Jews, whites, America, and homosexuals. He has called whites “blue-eyed devils” and the “anti-Christ.” He has described Jews as “bloodsuckers” who control the government, the media, and some black organizations.
“Do you know some of these satanic Jews have taken over BET [the Black Entertainment Network]?” Farrakhan said in a speech on Nov. 11, 2007. “Everything that we built, they have. The mind of Satan now is running the record industry, movie industry, and television...
MORE: http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_wrigh...1/14/64332.html
===========================================================
I suggest professional help, Delia, if not for yourself then for others as whatever sickness you have may well be contagious.
Best,
Raphie
Hey Delia, after reviewing your recent posting history, if I were RPenner, I would welcome your praise about as much as I imagine Barack Obama might welcome the support of Louis Farrakhan...
===========================================================
Obama's Minister Honored Farrakhan
Monday, January 14, 2008 7:49 PM
Barack Obama prays during services at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
Barack Obama’s longtime minister, mentor, and sounding board has been a key supporter of Louis Farrakhan and last month honored the Nation of Islam leader for lifetime achievement.
Farrakhan has repeatedly made hate-filled statements targeting Jews, whites, America, and homosexuals. He has called whites “blue-eyed devils” and the “anti-Christ.” He has described Jews as “bloodsuckers” who control the government, the media, and some black organizations.
“Do you know some of these satanic Jews have taken over BET [the Black Entertainment Network]?” Farrakhan said in a speech on Nov. 11, 2007. “Everything that we built, they have. The mind of Satan now is running the record industry, movie industry, and television...
MORE: http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_wrigh...1/14/64332.html
===========================================================
I suggest professional help, Delia, if not for yourself then for others as whatever sickness you have may well be contagious.
Best,
Raphie
QUOTE (Confused2+Jul 6 2008, 11:39 AM)
Hi RF,
I guess the people who have grown up with the internet accept trolls as 'normal' - we are the odd ones out - we still have the feeling "something should be done" - the reality seems to be that nothing can be done once a set of trolls have decided to attack a site and/or individual. The troll has unlimited time to devote to attacks whereas only limited time (and technology) is available to prevent the attacks.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I believe you rather hit the nail on the head C2. As for me, this "feeble minded" "rapist" "fukkwit" is not quite ready just yet to accept the permanent arrival of a Clockwork Orange Society. Guess I'm a bit old-fashioned that way...
Best,
Raphie
AN, I'll respond to you later... Best, RF
I guess the people who have grown up with the internet accept trolls as 'normal' - we are the odd ones out - we still have the feeling "something should be done" - the reality seems to be that nothing can be done once a set of trolls have decided to attack a site and/or individual. The troll has unlimited time to devote to attacks whereas only limited time (and technology) is available to prevent the attacks.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I believe you rather hit the nail on the head C2. As for me, this "feeble minded" "rapist" "fukkwit" is not quite ready just yet to accept the permanent arrival of a Clockwork Orange Society. Guess I'm a bit old-fashioned that way...
Best,
Raphie
AN, I'll respond to you later... Best, RF
I would be a little reluctant to put too much into the voting system - I see it as part of the game - a reflection about how sociality works - there will always be this battle of "good against evil" - there exist no such thing as objective truth - you can be more or less in agreement with conformity - time tends to change or at least drastically modify what we think is true knowledge -
One do not need to spent long time in this Forum before knowing the game and how to decode the ratings and react accordingly. This Forum would be a fun-factor less if the rating system was abolished.
And if you ask Ivars or any other person with a so-called low rating, I would guess that they are overtly disaffected - however it would be nice if the socalled FM's cared to qualify their neg's - it is a "little" just a little irritating to get these non-qualified - non-argued negs - it is in a way too cheap - too easy - points - please show just some quality when negging.
One do not need to spent long time in this Forum before knowing the game and how to decode the ratings and react accordingly. This Forum would be a fun-factor less if the rating system was abolished.
And if you ask Ivars or any other person with a so-called low rating, I would guess that they are overtly disaffected - however it would be nice if the socalled FM's cared to qualify their neg's - it is a "little" just a little irritating to get these non-qualified - non-argued negs - it is in a way too cheap - too easy - points - please show just some quality when negging.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 7 2008, 01:46 AM)
I long ago stopped giving a hoot what idiots think of me. I'd rather mop the floor with, and be disliked by, 100 idiots than pander to a single one of them.
No worries AN, you are indeed hated by idiots. But it hasn't stopped you getting the highest positive score on the forum
No worries AN, you are indeed hated by idiots. But it hasn't stopped you getting the highest positive score on the forum
QUOTE
How about a straight forward vote ....... to say whether the members of the forum wish to keep the 'feedback', or not?
I LOVE my negs
by DOG, if they were pos then I would have failed in being a scientist.
LOL
I love the schism between the lay-idiot-public and THE scientist
when thems catch up, I might as well give up !!!!!
LOL
NOM:
He is also loved, by the 'other idiots' of this forum. (aka Megalomaniacs, mafia, etc)
That is why he has the most activity in the feedback section, while losing out to real people, like Stuart Anderson, and JR Penner, in the over-all best score.
These 'other idiots' have lowered the value of this forum, even thought they claim to be "trying to save it", with their policing. Sock-puppet percentage must be taken into consideration when evaluating someones score. Multiply that by # of "warnings", for bad behavior.
"Alpha-Numeric" does not get close to the "top score".
His hiding behind cyber-names, sock-puppets, and biased class-mate 'gangs', all contribute to his self-proclaimed glory.
When are you going to come clean, AN? If you are real, then post the real info, not some "I can vouch for him" from another sock-puppet. Put it in your signature, not some obscure thread (1/8000+), that you seem to refer to. I've never seen you, Euler, or anyone else, who isn't using their real name, prove to be anything but a fake. (I'm not saying you haven't attended College)
You may think this is a 'personal attack', but it is not. It is in the best interests, for everybody, that the true leaders of this forum (or any other group) are accountable for their, and their followers, actions.
Until then.. this is all a hoax.
Mr Homm and RPenner are by far, better members, better people, and better Scientists, than the above-mentioned green-horns.
It is so easy to set this straight, for good. If you want to use your "position" as a reason for people to listen to you, then you'll have to 'go public', like all other legitimate Scientists.
All of these troubles, all of these sock-puppets, and all of these names came into the forum, at the same time (I do not mean, "to the day"). It is not a coincidence. The 'would-be heroes' rolled into this forum together, and both created the problems, and their "savior". It is sickening "anti-science" at work. This is not a 'popularity contest'.
QUOTE
No worries AN, you are indeed hated by idiots. But it hasn't stopped you getting the highest positive score on the forum
He is also loved, by the 'other idiots' of this forum. (aka Megalomaniacs, mafia, etc)
That is why he has the most activity in the feedback section, while losing out to real people, like Stuart Anderson, and JR Penner, in the over-all best score.
These 'other idiots' have lowered the value of this forum, even thought they claim to be "trying to save it", with their policing. Sock-puppet percentage must be taken into consideration when evaluating someones score. Multiply that by # of "warnings", for bad behavior.
"Alpha-Numeric" does not get close to the "top score".
His hiding behind cyber-names, sock-puppets, and biased class-mate 'gangs', all contribute to his self-proclaimed glory.
When are you going to come clean, AN? If you are real, then post the real info, not some "I can vouch for him" from another sock-puppet. Put it in your signature, not some obscure thread (1/8000+), that you seem to refer to. I've never seen you, Euler, or anyone else, who isn't using their real name, prove to be anything but a fake. (I'm not saying you haven't attended College)
You may think this is a 'personal attack', but it is not. It is in the best interests, for everybody, that the true leaders of this forum (or any other group) are accountable for their, and their followers, actions.
Until then.. this is all a hoax.
Mr Homm and RPenner are by far, better members, better people, and better Scientists, than the above-mentioned green-horns.
It is so easy to set this straight, for good. If you want to use your "position" as a reason for people to listen to you, then you'll have to 'go public', like all other legitimate Scientists.
All of these troubles, all of these sock-puppets, and all of these names came into the forum, at the same time (I do not mean, "to the day"). It is not a coincidence. The 'would-be heroes' rolled into this forum together, and both created the problems, and their "savior". It is sickening "anti-science" at work. This is not a 'popularity contest'.
Take the fight to them inQZtive, the valiant crusader of righteousness, saving the world one forum at a time from the evil sockpuppets, so we can all live happily ever after.
In reality, everyone is a sockpuppet. This forum is actually only one person.
Enough with the sockpuppet claims unless you can provide proof. Otherwise, shut your yap, it's just as annoying having everyone and their uncle running around daily screaming "SOCKPUPPET OMG OMG OMG" at the top of their lungs.
In reality, everyone is a sockpuppet. This forum is actually only one person.
Enough with the sockpuppet claims unless you can provide proof. Otherwise, shut your yap, it's just as annoying having everyone and their uncle running around daily screaming "SOCKPUPPET OMG OMG OMG" at the top of their lungs.
excaza,
I am. What better thread than this one?
I am. What better thread than this one?
.., the valiant crusader of righteousness, saving the world one forum at a time from the evil sockpuppets, so we can all live happily ever after.
Point taken.
That's the real insidious part: in this forum, it's unfalsifiable. There's no moderation, and when they instituted the "popularity contest", it fueled this fire that we have.
Let me remind folks why "they" don't care: the more sock-puppets ("SP's"), and the more voting, the more "hits" this web site can claim. More "members", and more activity, more potential revenue from advertisers. They try to clean up the worst of it, because the advertisers do visit the forum, if not but to just check their ads, and see what kind of potential customers they are getting. It would seem, in the end, to be a "bad idea" for the Forum, but it will take a while for them to realize this.
In the mean time..
I was responding to NOM's prostration. It's uncalled for; this is not a popularity contest. Nobody cares, to a greater extent than is already shown, "in the voting booth". When you can see the SP history, it's not about them, it's about their own grandiose egos, running rampant, making this a "fantasy island" for the deranged. It is MORE annoying than "claims of sock-puppetry", by far. It promotes "anti-science", egoism, false claims, mob mentality, and yes, more cranks too, with the same problems. That is the "sad day" for this forum.
NOM is one of the biggest punks on this site. (made bigger by # of SP's he has)
He has a personal relationship with Alphanumeric, which has been disclosed before. This "group" has an unfair advantage, over the rest of the members, and it plainly shows in the "rating system". They need to learn that cheaters do not "win" in Science. They need to learn, that Science is not a "popularity contest", even though the largest percentage of "followers"/supporters of a theory is what generally decides between 2 otherwise "good theories".
That is done with a "one-to-one" voting ratio, not the cheating, role-playing mentality, adolescent version you see here. A stand needs to be made. This forum was better, before the "invasion" of Megalomaniacs, and their legion.
I never heard the word "sock-puppet" on this forum, before the "Alpha Clan" signed up as members. Never.
J-
QUOTE
Take the fight to them inQZtive
I am. What better thread than this one?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Take the fight to them inQZtive |
I am. What better thread than this one?
.., the valiant crusader of righteousness, saving the world one forum at a time from the evil sockpuppets, so we can all live happily ever after.
Point taken.
QUOTE
Enough with the sockpuppet claims unless you can provide proof.
That's the real insidious part: in this forum, it's unfalsifiable. There's no moderation, and when they instituted the "popularity contest", it fueled this fire that we have.
Let me remind folks why "they" don't care: the more sock-puppets ("SP's"), and the more voting, the more "hits" this web site can claim. More "members", and more activity, more potential revenue from advertisers. They try to clean up the worst of it, because the advertisers do visit the forum, if not but to just check their ads, and see what kind of potential customers they are getting. It would seem, in the end, to be a "bad idea" for the Forum, but it will take a while for them to realize this.
In the mean time..
I was responding to NOM's prostration. It's uncalled for; this is not a popularity contest. Nobody cares, to a greater extent than is already shown, "in the voting booth". When you can see the SP history, it's not about them, it's about their own grandiose egos, running rampant, making this a "fantasy island" for the deranged. It is MORE annoying than "claims of sock-puppetry", by far. It promotes "anti-science", egoism, false claims, mob mentality, and yes, more cranks too, with the same problems. That is the "sad day" for this forum.
NOM is one of the biggest punks on this site. (made bigger by # of SP's he has)
He has a personal relationship with Alphanumeric, which has been disclosed before. This "group" has an unfair advantage, over the rest of the members, and it plainly shows in the "rating system". They need to learn that cheaters do not "win" in Science. They need to learn, that Science is not a "popularity contest", even though the largest percentage of "followers"/supporters of a theory is what generally decides between 2 otherwise "good theories".
That is done with a "one-to-one" voting ratio, not the cheating, role-playing mentality, adolescent version you see here. A stand needs to be made. This forum was better, before the "invasion" of Megalomaniacs, and their legion.
I never heard the word "sock-puppet" on this forum, before the "Alpha Clan" signed up as members. Never.
J-
QUOTE (inQZtive+Jul 6 2008, 11:10 PM)
"Alpha-Numeric" does not get close to the "top score".
His hiding behind cyber-names, sock-puppets, and biased class-mate 'gangs', all contribute to his self-proclaimed glory.
When are you going to come clean, AN? If you are real, then post the real info, not some "I can vouch for him" from another sock-puppet. Put it in your signature, not some obscure thread (1/8000+), that you seem to refer to. I've never seen you, Euler, or anyone else, who isn't using their real name, prove to be anything but a fake. (I'm not saying you haven't attended College)
It's funny. The people who claim I maintain many accounts are generally those who don't like what I say. I have no need to maintain sock puppets. I let my physics and maths posts talk for themselves and every time, every time, I've challenged a crank they've failed.
There's no 'gangs' with me in the centre, at least not ones I have set up. I know Euler in real life. I have spoken via email to Rpenner and BenTheMan. And I have posted personal information, many times. For instance here I prove to ubavontuba that I am who I claim to be, using multiple independent sources, including academic institutions, published papers and even rowing pictures. And what does ubavontuba reply? He continues with his "I won't back up anything I claim unless you admit you're a chatbot". He thinks I maintain numerous websites, including the largest collection of academic publications in the world, www.arxiv.org , all for the purpose of fooling him. Precursor has been given the same information, along with links to my work, and he went from "You're a faker" to deliberately ignoring the evidence. Kaneda, who I still cross paths with on another forum, is the same. Says "You're a faker" but doesn't actually debunk the multitude of links I provide.
I have existed on other forums for a long time under this name. Farsight, in his desperation to attack me rather than my physics, searched for me on other forums. I behave exactly the same on other forums as I do here, except on places like www.thestudentroom.co.uk I know more people in real life because I went or go to university with them.
You say that you've not seen myself prove to be anything but a fake but what you mean to say is you've not seen me prove I'm who or what I claim to be. The difference is important. I've been accused of being anywhere from 2 to 15 posters on these forums many many times and yet where's the evidence? The fact a large number of people disagree with you? I work in an office with 6 other people and every time one of them reads this forum over my shoulder they agree that people like Farsight, StevenA, NeoNo.1 etc are all crank wackos.
His hiding behind cyber-names, sock-puppets, and biased class-mate 'gangs', all contribute to his self-proclaimed glory.
When are you going to come clean, AN? If you are real, then post the real info, not some "I can vouch for him" from another sock-puppet. Put it in your signature, not some obscure thread (1/8000+), that you seem to refer to. I've never seen you, Euler, or anyone else, who isn't using their real name, prove to be anything but a fake. (I'm not saying you haven't attended College)
It's funny. The people who claim I maintain many accounts are generally those who don't like what I say. I have no need to maintain sock puppets. I let my physics and maths posts talk for themselves and every time, every time, I've challenged a crank they've failed.
There's no 'gangs' with me in the centre, at least not ones I have set up. I know Euler in real life. I have spoken via email to Rpenner and BenTheMan. And I have posted personal information, many times. For instance here I prove to ubavontuba that I am who I claim to be, using multiple independent sources, including academic institutions, published papers and even rowing pictures. And what does ubavontuba reply? He continues with his "I won't back up anything I claim unless you admit you're a chatbot". He thinks I maintain numerous websites, including the largest collection of academic publications in the world, www.arxiv.org , all for the purpose of fooling him. Precursor has been given the same information, along with links to my work, and he went from "You're a faker" to deliberately ignoring the evidence. Kaneda, who I still cross paths with on another forum, is the same. Says "You're a faker" but doesn't actually debunk the multitude of links I provide.
I have existed on other forums for a long time under this name. Farsight, in his desperation to attack me rather than my physics, searched for me on other forums. I behave exactly the same on other forums as I do here, except on places like www.thestudentroom.co.uk I know more people in real life because I went or go to university with them.
You say that you've not seen myself prove to be anything but a fake but what you mean to say is you've not seen me prove I'm who or what I claim to be. The difference is important. I've been accused of being anywhere from 2 to 15 posters on these forums many many times and yet where's the evidence? The fact a large number of people disagree with you? I work in an office with 6 other people and every time one of them reads this forum over my shoulder they agree that people like Farsight, StevenA, NeoNo.1 etc are all crank wackos.
QUOTE (inQZtive+Jul 6 2008, 11:10 PM)
NOM is one of the biggest punks on this site. (made bigger by # of SP's he has)
He has a personal relationship with Alphanumeric, which has been disclosed before.
He has a personal relationship with Alphanumeric, which has been disclosed before.
I have absolutely no idea how NOM is. He and I don't exchange very many PMs, never emails and I have never met him in real life. Can you link to the post where our 'personal relationship' is 'disclosed'? I doubt it, because you're lying.
It sounds to me like the cranks are playing chinese whispers and embelishing their dislike of me a bit. And even if I was every single member of the forum mafia (a term I dislike and which I have never used to describe myself) it wouldn't make the physics and maths I post wrong. And that's the problem for the cranks. If you cannot attack the science I post, you try to attack me.
And my warnings are for calling people like Farsight a liar. He took offence and went crying to the moderators. And yet he never actually managed to counter the insult itself by showing he could do relativity...
It sounds to me like the cranks are playing chinese whispers and embelishing their dislike of me a bit. And even if I was every single member of the forum mafia (a term I dislike and which I have never used to describe myself) it wouldn't make the physics and maths I post wrong. And that's the problem for the cranks. If you cannot attack the science I post, you try to attack me.
And my warnings are for calling people like Farsight a liar. He took offence and went crying to the moderators. And yet he never actually managed to counter the insult itself by showing he could do relativity...
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 6 2008, 10:02 AM)
That's what the percentage of our feedback is. One person, one vote, but the number, positive or negative, is the total of votes for or against us.
So we have both.
most of my negative feedback is not from one person/one vote, but rather from a few real people with many sock puppets.
the feedback system is a bad joke.
So we have both.
most of my negative feedback is not from one person/one vote, but rather from a few real people with many sock puppets.
the feedback system is a bad joke.
Thanks for the info, AlphaNumeric.
I realize that you get this from others as well, and it must be frustrating.
Let me go through a few points.
1. I have faith in your math & physics, and did not question that.
2. While I have no idea if you directly have other accounts, what I was posting about, (and included you in) was the larger picture here. I was talking specifically about these "scores", and the fact there are a large number of multiple account holders (I'm sure you would agree) here, that overly influence the feedback, in both directions. That was intended for NOM's post.
3. Like it or not, you are now "a role model" here. I think if you recognize this, you might see the benefit of being a little more vocal against the very poor behavior that goes on. (and yes, sometimes by you)
4. (case in point) You go right for the "I doubt it, because you're lying" response to my saying that I think NOM is "affiliated" with you. This may have been "Alpha" that I'm thinking of, and also, it could be through "Euler", and then you. Point being, that these people act like they're affiliated with you, and you do nothing to correct them. If you are against the FM, I must guess that you are against that behavior.
5. As I said above, I don't doubt your education; and as you said, "my posts speak for themselves", as far as math & physics goes. This is totally true. That is why I do not think that you need to state your credentials in an argument, nor state "an actual Physicist" on your title. Do you see my point? This just looks like your ego is riding a ways out in front of you, and it shouldn't matter, if your work is sound.
6. (consider this for "arguments sake") Linking papers, websites, etc, with "a name" that you say is you, isn't proof. I'm not asking for more (you'd really be twisted to go through all that, as you said). Give me 1/2 hour, and I can make an identical set of claims, only falsifiable by actually contacting the person. My real point is not "you are a fake", it is, "be authentic". With your real name, as a signature, or in your title, whatever, you are much more obliged to act a little more "human" in response to the absurdities that you have to deal with. These people are surely "in the dark", but they are people. You also regularly make "sweeping generalizations" about "all cranks" etc. My complaint there, is that Science is questioning, testing, confirming. If we begin to belittle anyone who dares to question, or seeks confirmation, we are "anti-science". Again, this has a domino effect, because of your role model status here. I can't imagine you treating real students in a classroom that way. I understand that there are limits, and you are pushed past them by the type who are pushing there own pet theory, regardless of how wrong. Help them as much as possible, and then let them go.
That is addressed above. This is the "veil" that everyone has here, and most, hide behind, and act in ways that are quite disgusting. Anybody can claim anything here. The "what" you claim to be, is irrelevant, IMO. The "who" is everything. You are going to publish under your name; I assume that you will refer to those papers here, occasionally. It is just my opinion, that showing your name would help things in ways that you don't realize, especially when you're going to make references to your work, or background, as part of your argument. I could be wrong.
That is addressed above. This is the "veil" that everyone has here, and most, hide behind, and act in ways that are quite disgusting. Anybody can claim anything here. The "what" you claim to be, is irrelevant, IMO. The "who" is everything. You are going to publish under your name; I assume that you will refer to those papers here, occasionally. It is just my opinion, that showing your name would help things in ways that you don't realize, especially when you're going to make references to your work, or background, as part of your argument. I could be wrong.
I've been accused of being anywhere from 2 to 15 posters on these forums many many times and yet where's the evidence? The fact a large number of people disagree with you? I work in an office with 6 other people and every time one of them reads this forum over my shoulder they agree that people like Farsight, StevenA, NeoNo.1 etc are all crank wackos.
The evidence is their 'gang' behavior. Again, this doesn't have to be 'directed' by you, just condoned. Most people do not disagree with me; this part is not "personal". It is seeing the feedback in almost everyone in this forum, go in an all too predictable pattern Yes, there are many people who are ignorant of many things. It doesn't make them any more wacko than you or I. There are people with real problems, of course.
We are all ignorant of something; even collectively, we know very little, of what there is "to know". Every new idea should have the same chance to be tested. Most will fail. The personal attacks, and the "nothing you say could be right" attitude just feed the growing opinion, that Science has become "cultish", or "indoctrinated". It should be as open as possible, especially in these times.
J-
Let me remind folks why "they" don't care: the more sock-puppets ("SP's"), and the more voting, the more "hits" this web site can claim. More "members", and more activity, more potential revenue from advertisers. They try to clean up the worst of it, because the advertisers do visit the forum, if not but to just check their ads, and see what kind of potential customers they are getting. It would seem, in the end, to be a "bad idea" for the Forum, but it will take a while for them to realize this.
How about a total botcott until our demands are met?
No more clicks until the 'feedback' is gone!
It will work if we stand united, brothers!
g.
I wouldn't care except half of them are giving me lots of negative feedback.
-C2.
I realize that you get this from others as well, and it must be frustrating.
Let me go through a few points.
1. I have faith in your math & physics, and did not question that.
2. While I have no idea if you directly have other accounts, what I was posting about, (and included you in) was the larger picture here. I was talking specifically about these "scores", and the fact there are a large number of multiple account holders (I'm sure you would agree) here, that overly influence the feedback, in both directions. That was intended for NOM's post.
3. Like it or not, you are now "a role model" here. I think if you recognize this, you might see the benefit of being a little more vocal against the very poor behavior that goes on. (and yes, sometimes by you)
4. (case in point) You go right for the "I doubt it, because you're lying" response to my saying that I think NOM is "affiliated" with you. This may have been "Alpha" that I'm thinking of, and also, it could be through "Euler", and then you. Point being, that these people act like they're affiliated with you, and you do nothing to correct them. If you are against the FM, I must guess that you are against that behavior.
5. As I said above, I don't doubt your education; and as you said, "my posts speak for themselves", as far as math & physics goes. This is totally true. That is why I do not think that you need to state your credentials in an argument, nor state "an actual Physicist" on your title. Do you see my point? This just looks like your ego is riding a ways out in front of you, and it shouldn't matter, if your work is sound.
6. (consider this for "arguments sake") Linking papers, websites, etc, with "a name" that you say is you, isn't proof. I'm not asking for more (you'd really be twisted to go through all that, as you said). Give me 1/2 hour, and I can make an identical set of claims, only falsifiable by actually contacting the person. My real point is not "you are a fake", it is, "be authentic". With your real name, as a signature, or in your title, whatever, you are much more obliged to act a little more "human" in response to the absurdities that you have to deal with. These people are surely "in the dark", but they are people. You also regularly make "sweeping generalizations" about "all cranks" etc. My complaint there, is that Science is questioning, testing, confirming. If we begin to belittle anyone who dares to question, or seeks confirmation, we are "anti-science". Again, this has a domino effect, because of your role model status here. I can't imagine you treating real students in a classroom that way. I understand that there are limits, and you are pushed past them by the type who are pushing there own pet theory, regardless of how wrong. Help them as much as possible, and then let them go.
QUOTE
You say that you've not seen myself prove to be anything but a fake but what you mean to say is you've not seen me prove I'm who or what I claim to be. The difference is important.
That is addressed above. This is the "veil" that everyone has here, and most, hide behind, and act in ways that are quite disgusting. Anybody can claim anything here. The "what" you claim to be, is irrelevant, IMO. The "who" is everything. You are going to publish under your name; I assume that you will refer to those papers here, occasionally. It is just my opinion, that showing your name would help things in ways that you don't realize, especially when you're going to make references to your work, or background, as part of your argument. I could be wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You say that you've not seen myself prove to be anything but a fake but what you mean to say is you've not seen me prove I'm who or what I claim to be. The difference is important. |
That is addressed above. This is the "veil" that everyone has here, and most, hide behind, and act in ways that are quite disgusting. Anybody can claim anything here. The "what" you claim to be, is irrelevant, IMO. The "who" is everything. You are going to publish under your name; I assume that you will refer to those papers here, occasionally. It is just my opinion, that showing your name would help things in ways that you don't realize, especially when you're going to make references to your work, or background, as part of your argument. I could be wrong.
I've been accused of being anywhere from 2 to 15 posters on these forums many many times and yet where's the evidence? The fact a large number of people disagree with you? I work in an office with 6 other people and every time one of them reads this forum over my shoulder they agree that people like Farsight, StevenA, NeoNo.1 etc are all crank wackos.
The evidence is their 'gang' behavior. Again, this doesn't have to be 'directed' by you, just condoned. Most people do not disagree with me; this part is not "personal". It is seeing the feedback in almost everyone in this forum, go in an all too predictable pattern Yes, there are many people who are ignorant of many things. It doesn't make them any more wacko than you or I. There are people with real problems, of course.
We are all ignorant of something; even collectively, we know very little, of what there is "to know". Every new idea should have the same chance to be tested. Most will fail. The personal attacks, and the "nothing you say could be right" attitude just feed the growing opinion, that Science has become "cultish", or "indoctrinated". It should be as open as possible, especially in these times.
J-
QUOTE (inQZtive+Jul 6 2008, 12:29 PM)
Let me remind folks why "they" don't care: the more sock-puppets ("SP's"), and the more voting, the more "hits" this web site can claim. More "members", and more activity, more potential revenue from advertisers. They try to clean up the worst of it, because the advertisers do visit the forum, if not but to just check their ads, and see what kind of potential customers they are getting. It would seem, in the end, to be a "bad idea" for the Forum, but it will take a while for them to realize this.
How about a total botcott until our demands are met?
No more clicks until the 'feedback' is gone!
It will work if we stand united, brothers!
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jul 7 2008, 12:57 AM)
How about a total botcott ...
Of course, I meant 'boycott'...but there again.....
g.
Of course, I meant 'boycott'...but there again.....
g.
Every time I hear someone whinin about their feedback, I think o an old sayin from where I come from:
"If one man calls ya a dog, ignore him. If a second man calls ya a dog, go ahead an get mad. But when a third man calls ya a dog, check yerself fer fleas."
"If one man calls ya a dog, ignore him. If a second man calls ya a dog, go ahead an get mad. But when a third man calls ya a dog, check yerself fer fleas."
While multiple forum accounts are kinda ghey, there is a great variety of people posting on this forum and I think each has their place.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Jul 7 2008, 02:28 AM)
While multiple forum accounts are kinda ghey, there is a great variety of people posting on this forum and I think each has their place.
Yeah, there's probably at least 4 people still here!
g.
Yeah, there's probably at least 4 people still here!
g.
QUOTE
Yeah, there's probably at least 4 people still here!
I wouldn't care except half of them are giving me lots of negative feedback.
-C2.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 7 2008, 01:27 PM)
Every time I hear someone whinin about their feedback, I think o an old sayin from where I come from:
"If one man calls ya a dog, ignore him. If a second man calls ya a dog, go ahead an get mad. But when a third man calls ya a dog, check yerself fer fleas."
funny thing is, where you come from your audience is a bunch more of you with proxy accounts all in awe of your wisdom.
give yourselves a pat on the back.
the feedback system is a bad joke.
"If one man calls ya a dog, ignore him. If a second man calls ya a dog, go ahead an get mad. But when a third man calls ya a dog, check yerself fer fleas."
funny thing is, where you come from your audience is a bunch more of you with proxy accounts all in awe of your wisdom.
give yourselves a pat on the back.
the feedback system is a bad joke.
QUOTE (newton+Jul 7 2008, 03:19 PM)
funny thing is, where you come from your audience is a bunch more of you with proxy accounts all in awe of your wisdom.
Wrong!
There's only one screen name I use on this board, no matter how much the opposite might make ya feel better, son.
Wrong!
There's only one screen name I use on this board, no matter how much the opposite might make ya feel better, son.
MjolnirPants
This is poor use of logic. It does not make an analogy to the subject at hand. Your story should read like this:
While sitting in a room, talking with a man, he calls you a dog. Offended, you get up and go into the next room. From the room you just left, you hear, in a slightly muffled voice, "yeah, you're a dog". Then, in another voice, (same british accent), "yeah, a real stupid dog". Then, in a female sounding voice, "yeah, and your mum had sex with a monkey, you f*'n dog". Then, another, ....
Who's got the "fleas"?
Of course not just once, for one person, but for everybody here, that ever disagrees with anybody, deemed to be "FM", or affiliated with AN ~ Euler. These "other voters" have never been in any conversations, they exist only to make some people appear better than others, in a "mob-rule" sort of way.
Again, I'm not saying who is wrong, or right, in these conversations. Most of the time, these highly educated folks, are going to be on the "right" side. That is not the point. The point is trying to get back, and maintain a respectable atmosphere, where people can talk, and reasonably work out their differences. This does not, of course, mean that everybody will always come to an agreement.
If people are wrong, they can be taught. The atmosphere must resemble something closer to a classroom. Would you stay in a class, where the "teacher" changed voices, and mocked you, if you were wrong, or asked a repeated question? If he/she laughed at you, and solicited negative opinions from your "class-mates"? If he/she just stood there, while another class-mate did the above? If someone rudely interupts your class, calling the student that you're working with, an idiot, then you MUST deal with that interupting person. Otherwise, you lose all control and respect of everybody (except the offender).
Most people do not learn something from a one-time exposure. That's what "practice" is all about. So, calling someone an "idiot", or a "crank", because you have to repeat something, is rather "non-teaching", or "anti-science", don't you think? When it's about your ego, and just being right, and appearing to "win", then, it is not Science, and it is not Teaching.
J-
QUOTE
Every time I hear someone whinin about their feedback, I think o an old sayin from where I come from:
"If one man calls ya a dog, ignore him. If a second man calls ya a dog, go ahead an get mad. But when a third man calls ya a dog, check yerself fer fleas."
"If one man calls ya a dog, ignore him. If a second man calls ya a dog, go ahead an get mad. But when a third man calls ya a dog, check yerself fer fleas."
This is poor use of logic. It does not make an analogy to the subject at hand. Your story should read like this:
While sitting in a room, talking with a man, he calls you a dog. Offended, you get up and go into the next room. From the room you just left, you hear, in a slightly muffled voice, "yeah, you're a dog". Then, in another voice, (same british accent), "yeah, a real stupid dog". Then, in a female sounding voice, "yeah, and your mum had sex with a monkey, you f*'n dog". Then, another, ....
Who's got the "fleas"?
Of course not just once, for one person, but for everybody here, that ever disagrees with anybody, deemed to be "FM", or affiliated with AN ~ Euler. These "other voters" have never been in any conversations, they exist only to make some people appear better than others, in a "mob-rule" sort of way.
Again, I'm not saying who is wrong, or right, in these conversations. Most of the time, these highly educated folks, are going to be on the "right" side. That is not the point. The point is trying to get back, and maintain a respectable atmosphere, where people can talk, and reasonably work out their differences. This does not, of course, mean that everybody will always come to an agreement.
If people are wrong, they can be taught. The atmosphere must resemble something closer to a classroom. Would you stay in a class, where the "teacher" changed voices, and mocked you, if you were wrong, or asked a repeated question? If he/she laughed at you, and solicited negative opinions from your "class-mates"? If he/she just stood there, while another class-mate did the above? If someone rudely interupts your class, calling the student that you're working with, an idiot, then you MUST deal with that interupting person. Otherwise, you lose all control and respect of everybody (except the offender).
Most people do not learn something from a one-time exposure. That's what "practice" is all about. So, calling someone an "idiot", or a "crank", because you have to repeat something, is rather "non-teaching", or "anti-science", don't you think? When it's about your ego, and just being right, and appearing to "win", then, it is not Science, and it is not Teaching.
J-
QUOTE (inQZtive+)
These 'other idiots' have lowered the value of this forum, even thought they claim to be "trying to save it", with their policing.
The blame for the downfall of PhysOrg shouldn't rest on our shoulders alone. Egocentric wannabe idiots like Farsight, and Zarkov, and dizamin, and StevenA, and Precursor562 have played a major part in it too. They constantly say they know better than the experts. They constantly say they're going to revolutionize physics, or come up with some groundbreaking theory. They never provide proof for they're claims, and then they throw hissy fits when they get challenged to do so.
Don't pin the blame solely on us.
AlphaNumeric doesn't need a sockpuppet to trash idiots like Farsight and ubavontuba. He does it quite well on his own.
AlphaNumeric doesn't need a sockpuppet to trash idiots like Farsight and ubavontuba. He does it quite well on his own.
and biased class-mate 'gangs'
Biased only because of his physics knowledge.
And who are these mysterious sockpuppets of NOM's? Enlighten us. While you're at it, do clear up which sockpuppet is mine, will you?
And who are these mysterious sockpuppets of NOM's? Enlighten us. While you're at it, do clear up which sockpuppet is mine, will you?
Again, I'm not saying who is wrong, or right, in these conversations. Most of the time, these highly educated folks, are going to be on the "right" side. That is not the point. The point is trying to get back, and maintain a respectable atmosphere, where people can talk, and reasonably work out their differences.
Except that will never happen. Go and take a glance at dad1's posts, or Zarkov's. Do you see any hope of reasonably working out your differences with those two? No. In their minds, they are right, and demand that you agree with them. They ignore evidence against their claims, and continue to blindly wave their arms.
*cough*Farsight*cough*
*cough*Farsight*cough*
If people are wrong, they can be taught. The atmosphere must resemble something closer to a classroom.
What if the "students" don't want to learn?
The blame for the downfall of PhysOrg shouldn't rest on our shoulders alone. Egocentric wannabe idiots like Farsight, and Zarkov, and dizamin, and StevenA, and Precursor562 have played a major part in it too. They constantly say they know better than the experts. They constantly say they're going to revolutionize physics, or come up with some groundbreaking theory. They never provide proof for they're claims, and then they throw hissy fits when they get challenged to do so.
Don't pin the blame solely on us.
QUOTE
"Alpha-Numeric" does not get close to the "top score".
His hiding behind cyber-names, sock-puppets
His hiding behind cyber-names, sock-puppets
AlphaNumeric doesn't need a sockpuppet to trash idiots like Farsight and ubavontuba. He does it quite well on his own.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Alpha-Numeric" does not get close to the "top score". His hiding behind cyber-names, sock-puppets |
AlphaNumeric doesn't need a sockpuppet to trash idiots like Farsight and ubavontuba. He does it quite well on his own.
and biased class-mate 'gangs'
Biased only because of his physics knowledge.
QUOTE
NOM is one of the biggest punks on this site. (made bigger by # of SP's he has)
And who are these mysterious sockpuppets of NOM's? Enlighten us. While you're at it, do clear up which sockpuppet is mine, will you?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| NOM is one of the biggest punks on this site. (made bigger by # of SP's he has) |
And who are these mysterious sockpuppets of NOM's? Enlighten us. While you're at it, do clear up which sockpuppet is mine, will you?
Again, I'm not saying who is wrong, or right, in these conversations. Most of the time, these highly educated folks, are going to be on the "right" side. That is not the point. The point is trying to get back, and maintain a respectable atmosphere, where people can talk, and reasonably work out their differences.
Except that will never happen. Go and take a glance at dad1's posts, or Zarkov's. Do you see any hope of reasonably working out your differences with those two? No. In their minds, they are right, and demand that you agree with them. They ignore evidence against their claims, and continue to blindly wave their arms.
QUOTE
This does not, of course, mean that everybody will always come to an agreement.
*cough*Farsight*cough*
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This does not, of course, mean that everybody will always come to an agreement. |
*cough*Farsight*cough*
If people are wrong, they can be taught. The atmosphere must resemble something closer to a classroom.
What if the "students" don't want to learn?
QUOTE (newton+)
funny thing is, where you come from your audience is a bunch more of you with proxy accounts all in awe of your wisdom.
newton, I'm still waiting for you to "expose" me as a sockpuppet of NOM. Actually, I've been waiting for 4 months; you've remained awfully silent all this time....
newton, I'm still waiting for you to "expose" me as a sockpuppet of NOM. Actually, I've been waiting for 4 months; you've remained awfully silent all this time....
QUOTE (TheDoc+)
Don't pin the blame solely on us.
Looking at my feedback from eight of 'your lot'
Dr Fred A Wolf Posted: Yesterday at 6:41 PM
N O M Posted: Yesterday at 4:30 AM
<Max> Posted: Yesterday at 3:25 AM
Evans Posted: Yesterday at 3:25 AM
Jeremy Fisher Posted: Yesterday at 2:28 AM
Delia Posted: Jul 4 2008, 05:47 AM
Sec Posted: Jun 1 2008, 01:51 PM
Agent X20 Posted: May 16 2008, 09:04 PM
Honestly .. how many individuals do you count? Do you really expect anyone to care which are your SP's and which are NOM's, 5D's or Alpha's .. you're all the same anyway.
-C2.
Looking at my feedback from eight of 'your lot'
Dr Fred A Wolf Posted: Yesterday at 6:41 PM
N O M Posted: Yesterday at 4:30 AM
<Max> Posted: Yesterday at 3:25 AM
Evans Posted: Yesterday at 3:25 AM
Jeremy Fisher Posted: Yesterday at 2:28 AM
Delia Posted: Jul 4 2008, 05:47 AM
Sec Posted: Jun 1 2008, 01:51 PM
Agent X20 Posted: May 16 2008, 09:04 PM
Honestly .. how many individuals do you count? Do you really expect anyone to care which are your SP's and which are NOM's, 5D's or Alpha's .. you're all the same anyway.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Honestly .. how many individuals do you count?
Three.
Why? Because most of the FM thinks you're an idiot?
Three.
QUOTE
you're all the same anyway.
Why? Because most of the FM thinks you're an idiot?
QUOTE (inQZtive+Jul 7 2008, 05:01 PM)
MjolnirPants
This is poor use of logic. It does not make an analogy to the subject at hand. Your story should read like this:
While sitting in a room, talking with a man, he calls you a dog. Offended, you get up and go into the next room. From the room you just left, you hear, in a slightly muffled voice, "yeah, you're a dog". Then, in another voice, (same british accent), "yeah, a real stupid dog". Then, in a female sounding voice, "yeah, and your mum had sex with a monkey, you f*'n dog". Then, another, ....
Yer inability to understand the analogy there don't make my logic faulty.
Yer own 'version' o it even assumes crap what ain't true! An ya fault my use o logic...
The point o it is this, dummies (since no-one seems to get it...)
When a sizable group o people who have had plenty o opportunities to read what you have to say all think yer stupid, then there's a good chance yer stupid.
Bullsh*t. I've seen plenty o people disagree with the FM without seein their feedback scores plummet. newguy, Tikay, THEY, even me.
Bullsh*t. I've seen plenty o people disagree with the FM without seein their feedback scores plummet. newguy, Tikay, THEY, even me.
The point is trying to get back, and maintain a respectable atmosphere, where people can talk, and reasonably work out their differences. This does not, of course, mean that everybody will always come to an agreement.
Acusin post-graduates in physics o bein chatboxes, or o not knowin anything about physics or mathematics, accusin mathematicians o not knowin mathematics, refusin to accept the scientific consensus on any number o questions, includin the definition o physics or maths jargon words, accusin people o bein sock-puppets o each other with no proof or even evidence, claimin to be able to do things then refusin to do so, givin people positive feedback jes cause the wrong person dislikes em, an various other crank activities here are conducive to that? Please!
Farsight, Ivars, StevenA, Precurser, Ubavontuba, Phillipwhatevernumbergoeshere, Zarkov....
They're all examples o people who are usually wrong when they make claims about physics or math, who also refuse to learn from those who know better.
Farsight, Ivars, StevenA, Precurser, Ubavontuba, Phillipwhatevernumbergoeshere, Zarkov....
They're all examples o people who are usually wrong when they make claims about physics or math, who also refuse to learn from those who know better.
Would you stay in a class, where the "teacher" changed voices, and mocked you, if you were wrong, or asked a repeated question?
I ain't never seen anyone here make fun o someone fer askin a question. I seen a lot o people make fun o others fer makin incorrect claims, then refusin to admit their mistake, though. Also, yer once again assumin the FM is jes one or two guys with sockpuppets, despite the fact that I know for a fact that they're not. Sign up fer Sapo's Joint an look at their IP addresses.
Once again, yer assumin crap that jes ain't true. I don't ever pick on nobody to make my ego bloat up. I do it because it's funny an because I think the person I'm makin fun of has it comin. Go log onto a joke site and try to count the number o jokes what hinge around someone doin somethin stupid. Seriously, go do it. Ya think every single one o those jokes was written by a bully?
Yer an idiot. Yer workin on false assumptions an comfortin lies, instead o workin with reality. To me, that's the definition o an idiot.
Hi TheDoc!
Wow, this is the first time that we've ever talked. It's nice to get to meet the person who has 3 negs, under "thedoc" account, in my feedback.
Proving SP's can be done easily by looking into the records of PhysOrg. Short of that, there is no "proving". But, as confused2 said, it is actually irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you are 2^4 or 3^3. Your "more than one unique votes" bastardizes the feedback system.
Good evidence:
I have ZERO posts, between Feb 25 2008, and Jun 27 2008. You joined in March, 2008. You immediately were FM member, and began where you left off.. presumably, cecil P abstract>>Dallas>>Alpha>>Pupamancur. Your latest account, TheDoc, posted back to back negatives (1 week), in a large period of time that I did not post at all.
Can you link any PM's, e-mails, or other data, that show how one "joins" the FM, how it is communicated that, "everyone thinks you're an idiot"? Do you have meeting minutes, or something?
If you don't have this sort of evidence, then we must assume that there really is NO communication going on, at all. That would be unnecessary, if the members were actually the n_th root of SP_0. If there are "just 3", and they each have 2 or 3 accounts, and they each have been banned n times, then.. well, you get the point.
If these types of people are vocally supporting the likes of Alphanumeric, they are not doing him any favors.
TheDoc quotes:
I'm not. I included the cranks, too.
I'm not. I included the cranks, too.
AlphaNumeric doesn't need a sockpuppet to trash idiots like Farsight and ubavontuba. He does it quite well on his own
You are right. I said as much. The voting, is what I was talking about, not ability.
Science shouldn't have a bias; that is exactly my point. If you don't know as much as him, then how do you know he is correct, in any given situation. Yet, the sides are taken.
Science shouldn't have a bias; that is exactly my point. If you don't know as much as him, then how do you know he is correct, in any given situation. Yet, the sides are taken.
What if the "students" don't want to learn?
If, after all attempts prove unsuccessful, walk away. It is the never-ending threads, with nothing substantial, and pure name calling, etc. going on, that make this place look so bad. That, and the immediate neg bandwagon, for new members who ask questions.
J-
This is poor use of logic. It does not make an analogy to the subject at hand. Your story should read like this:
While sitting in a room, talking with a man, he calls you a dog. Offended, you get up and go into the next room. From the room you just left, you hear, in a slightly muffled voice, "yeah, you're a dog". Then, in another voice, (same british accent), "yeah, a real stupid dog". Then, in a female sounding voice, "yeah, and your mum had sex with a monkey, you f*'n dog". Then, another, ....
Yer inability to understand the analogy there don't make my logic faulty.
Yer own 'version' o it even assumes crap what ain't true! An ya fault my use o logic...
The point o it is this, dummies (since no-one seems to get it...)
When a sizable group o people who have had plenty o opportunities to read what you have to say all think yer stupid, then there's a good chance yer stupid.
QUOTE
Of course not just once, for one person, but for everybody here, that ever disagrees with anybody, deemed to be "FM", or affiliated with AN ~ Euler. These "other voters" have never been in any conversations, they exist only to make some people appear better than others, in a "mob-rule" sort of way.
Bullsh*t. I've seen plenty o people disagree with the FM without seein their feedback scores plummet. newguy, Tikay, THEY, even me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Of course not just once, for one person, but for everybody here, that ever disagrees with anybody, deemed to be "FM", or affiliated with AN ~ Euler. These "other voters" have never been in any conversations, they exist only to make some people appear better than others, in a "mob-rule" sort of way. |
Bullsh*t. I've seen plenty o people disagree with the FM without seein their feedback scores plummet. newguy, Tikay, THEY, even me.
The point is trying to get back, and maintain a respectable atmosphere, where people can talk, and reasonably work out their differences. This does not, of course, mean that everybody will always come to an agreement.
Acusin post-graduates in physics o bein chatboxes, or o not knowin anything about physics or mathematics, accusin mathematicians o not knowin mathematics, refusin to accept the scientific consensus on any number o questions, includin the definition o physics or maths jargon words, accusin people o bein sock-puppets o each other with no proof or even evidence, claimin to be able to do things then refusin to do so, givin people positive feedback jes cause the wrong person dislikes em, an various other crank activities here are conducive to that? Please!
QUOTE
If people are wrong, they can be taught.
Farsight, Ivars, StevenA, Precurser, Ubavontuba, Phillipwhatevernumbergoeshere, Zarkov....
They're all examples o people who are usually wrong when they make claims about physics or math, who also refuse to learn from those who know better.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If people are wrong, they can be taught. |
Farsight, Ivars, StevenA, Precurser, Ubavontuba, Phillipwhatevernumbergoeshere, Zarkov....
They're all examples o people who are usually wrong when they make claims about physics or math, who also refuse to learn from those who know better.
Would you stay in a class, where the "teacher" changed voices, and mocked you, if you were wrong, or asked a repeated question?
I ain't never seen anyone here make fun o someone fer askin a question. I seen a lot o people make fun o others fer makin incorrect claims, then refusin to admit their mistake, though. Also, yer once again assumin the FM is jes one or two guys with sockpuppets, despite the fact that I know for a fact that they're not. Sign up fer Sapo's Joint an look at their IP addresses.
QUOTE
When it's about your ego, and just being right, and appearing to "win", then, it is not Science, and it is not Teaching.
Once again, yer assumin crap that jes ain't true. I don't ever pick on nobody to make my ego bloat up. I do it because it's funny an because I think the person I'm makin fun of has it comin. Go log onto a joke site and try to count the number o jokes what hinge around someone doin somethin stupid. Seriously, go do it. Ya think every single one o those jokes was written by a bully?
Yer an idiot. Yer workin on false assumptions an comfortin lies, instead o workin with reality. To me, that's the definition o an idiot.
On the Internet the only acceptable victim of a joke is yourself. Try anything else and you get a bunch of people each trying to be more poisonous than the next .. which is exactly what we have here - aka The Forum Mafia.
-C2.
-C2.
Hi TheDoc!
Wow, this is the first time that we've ever talked. It's nice to get to meet the person who has 3 negs, under "thedoc" account, in my feedback.
Proving SP's can be done easily by looking into the records of PhysOrg. Short of that, there is no "proving". But, as confused2 said, it is actually irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you are 2^4 or 3^3. Your "more than one unique votes" bastardizes the feedback system.
Good evidence:
I have ZERO posts, between Feb 25 2008, and Jun 27 2008. You joined in March, 2008. You immediately were FM member, and began where you left off.. presumably, cecil P abstract>>Dallas>>Alpha>>Pupamancur. Your latest account, TheDoc, posted back to back negatives (1 week), in a large period of time that I did not post at all.
Can you link any PM's, e-mails, or other data, that show how one "joins" the FM, how it is communicated that, "everyone thinks you're an idiot"? Do you have meeting minutes, or something?
If you don't have this sort of evidence, then we must assume that there really is NO communication going on, at all. That would be unnecessary, if the members were actually the n_th root of SP_0. If there are "just 3", and they each have 2 or 3 accounts, and they each have been banned n times, then.. well, you get the point.
If these types of people are vocally supporting the likes of Alphanumeric, they are not doing him any favors.
TheDoc quotes:
QUOTE
Don't pin the blame solely on us.
I'm not. I included the cranks, too.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Don't pin the blame solely on us. |
I'm not. I included the cranks, too.
AlphaNumeric doesn't need a sockpuppet to trash idiots like Farsight and ubavontuba. He does it quite well on his own
You are right. I said as much. The voting, is what I was talking about, not ability.
QUOTE
Biased only because of his physics knowledge.
Science shouldn't have a bias; that is exactly my point. If you don't know as much as him, then how do you know he is correct, in any given situation. Yet, the sides are taken.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Biased only because of his physics knowledge. |
Science shouldn't have a bias; that is exactly my point. If you don't know as much as him, then how do you know he is correct, in any given situation. Yet, the sides are taken.
What if the "students" don't want to learn?
If, after all attempts prove unsuccessful, walk away. It is the never-ending threads, with nothing substantial, and pure name calling, etc. going on, that make this place look so bad. That, and the immediate neg bandwagon, for new members who ask questions.
J-
BibDumbWierdo/MjolnirPants
Your new "accent" is funny, when used sparingly. Otherwise, it's obnoxious.
I understood your analogy. I pointed out, that it didn't fit the scenario. I also did not say "faulty", I said "poor". There's a difference.
I understood your analogy. I pointed out, that it didn't fit the scenario. I also did not say "faulty", I said "poor". There's a difference.
Yer own 'version' o it even assumes crap what ain't true!
You'll have to explain what you mean.
You're basically right there. But, again, it doesn't apply to this (mine, anyway) scenario. No "plenty of opportunities", no "sizable group of people". Read up on statistics, and come back and tell me what the opinions of 5-10 people say about "the truth".
You're basically right there. But, again, it doesn't apply to this (mine, anyway) scenario. No "plenty of opportunities", no "sizable group of people". Read up on statistics, and come back and tell me what the opinions of 5-10 people say about "the truth".
Bullsh*t. I've seen plenty o people disagree with the FM without seein their feedback scores plummet. newguy, Tikay, THEY, even me.
All those scores are down. It doesn't seem to be consistent with my point. Having a fairly high score, to begin with, prevents the FM from totally screwing someones feedback score, as confused2 is evidence of.
I've done none of the above. The closest things are: I have given positive feedback to someone, to counter the parade/bandwagon of negs. I have not given the same, for anyone who has proved to be totally argumentative, beyond reasoning, etc. Basically, to a few "newbies". Also, I do not always follow the "consensus", unless it is well established by experimental fact.
I've done none of the above. The closest things are: I have given positive feedback to someone, to counter the parade/bandwagon of negs. I have not given the same, for anyone who has proved to be totally argumentative, beyond reasoning, etc. Basically, to a few "newbies". Also, I do not always follow the "consensus", unless it is well established by experimental fact.
I ain't never seen anyone here make fun o someone fer askin a question.
Maybe you haven't looked hard enough? I don't know. You can translate "making fun of", into "negging", if it helps you to see my point.
No, I'm not assuming "1 or 2". IP addresses signify "real internet connections", not "real people". Signing in at your girlfriends house doesn't count. See my point? Anybody can "falsify", or create a new IP address. Especially at schools, libraries, internet cafe's, etc. Not to mention the software that can make you appear from anywhere you'd like. There is no substitute for "real people".
No, I'm not assuming "1 or 2". IP addresses signify "real internet connections", not "real people". Signing in at your girlfriends house doesn't count. See my point? Anybody can "falsify", or create a new IP address. Especially at schools, libraries, internet cafe's, etc. Not to mention the software that can make you appear from anywhere you'd like. There is no substitute for "real people".
me:
When it's about your ego, and just being right, and appearing to "win", then, it is not Science, and it is not Teaching.
You're vain. I was making a general statement, and not something for "you" only. It still stands:
You're vain. I was making a general statement, and not something for "you" only. It still stands:
When it's about your ego, and just being right, and appearing to "win", then, it is not Science, and it is not Teaching.
J-
Your new "accent" is funny, when used sparingly. Otherwise, it's obnoxious.
QUOTE
Yer inability to understand the analogy there don't make my logic faulty.
I understood your analogy. I pointed out, that it didn't fit the scenario. I also did not say "faulty", I said "poor". There's a difference.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yer inability to understand the analogy there don't make my logic faulty. |
I understood your analogy. I pointed out, that it didn't fit the scenario. I also did not say "faulty", I said "poor". There's a difference.
Yer own 'version' o it even assumes crap what ain't true!
You'll have to explain what you mean.
QUOTE
When a sizable group o people who have had plenty o opportunities to read what you have to say all think yer stupid, then there's a good chance yer stupid.
You're basically right there. But, again, it doesn't apply to this (mine, anyway) scenario. No "plenty of opportunities", no "sizable group of people". Read up on statistics, and come back and tell me what the opinions of 5-10 people say about "the truth".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When a sizable group o people who have had plenty o opportunities to read what you have to say all think yer stupid, then there's a good chance yer stupid. |
You're basically right there. But, again, it doesn't apply to this (mine, anyway) scenario. No "plenty of opportunities", no "sizable group of people". Read up on statistics, and come back and tell me what the opinions of 5-10 people say about "the truth".
Bullsh*t. I've seen plenty o people disagree with the FM without seein their feedback scores plummet. newguy, Tikay, THEY, even me.
All those scores are down. It doesn't seem to be consistent with my point. Having a fairly high score, to begin with, prevents the FM from totally screwing someones feedback score, as confused2 is evidence of.
QUOTE
Acusin post-graduates in physics o bein chatboxes, or o not knowin anything about physics or mathematics, accusin mathematicians o not knowin mathematics, refusin to accept the scientific consensus on any number o questions, includin the definition o physics or maths jargon words, accusin people o bein sock-puppets o each other with no proof or even evidence, claimin to be able to do things then refusin to do so, givin people positive feedback jes cause the wrong person dislikes em, an various other crank activities here are conducive to that? Please!
I've done none of the above. The closest things are: I have given positive feedback to someone, to counter the parade/bandwagon of negs. I have not given the same, for anyone who has proved to be totally argumentative, beyond reasoning, etc. Basically, to a few "newbies". Also, I do not always follow the "consensus", unless it is well established by experimental fact.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Acusin post-graduates in physics o bein chatboxes, or o not knowin anything about physics or mathematics, accusin mathematicians o not knowin mathematics, refusin to accept the scientific consensus on any number o questions, includin the definition o physics or maths jargon words, accusin people o bein sock-puppets o each other with no proof or even evidence, claimin to be able to do things then refusin to do so, givin people positive feedback jes cause the wrong person dislikes em, an various other crank activities here are conducive to that? Please! |
I've done none of the above. The closest things are: I have given positive feedback to someone, to counter the parade/bandwagon of negs. I have not given the same, for anyone who has proved to be totally argumentative, beyond reasoning, etc. Basically, to a few "newbies". Also, I do not always follow the "consensus", unless it is well established by experimental fact.
I ain't never seen anyone here make fun o someone fer askin a question.
Maybe you haven't looked hard enough? I don't know. You can translate "making fun of", into "negging", if it helps you to see my point.
QUOTE
yer once again assumin the FM is jes one or two guys with sockpuppets, despite the fact that I know for a fact that they're not. Sign up fer Sapo's Joint an look at their IP addresses.
No, I'm not assuming "1 or 2". IP addresses signify "real internet connections", not "real people". Signing in at your girlfriends house doesn't count. See my point? Anybody can "falsify", or create a new IP address. Especially at schools, libraries, internet cafe's, etc. Not to mention the software that can make you appear from anywhere you'd like. There is no substitute for "real people".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| yer once again assumin the FM is jes one or two guys with sockpuppets, despite the fact that I know for a fact that they're not. Sign up fer Sapo's Joint an look at their IP addresses. |
No, I'm not assuming "1 or 2". IP addresses signify "real internet connections", not "real people". Signing in at your girlfriends house doesn't count. See my point? Anybody can "falsify", or create a new IP address. Especially at schools, libraries, internet cafe's, etc. Not to mention the software that can make you appear from anywhere you'd like. There is no substitute for "real people".
me:
When it's about your ego, and just being right, and appearing to "win", then, it is not Science, and it is not Teaching.
QUOTE
Once again, yer assumin crap that jes ain't true. I don't ever pick on nobody to make my ego bloat up.
You're vain. I was making a general statement, and not something for "you" only. It still stands:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Once again, yer assumin crap that jes ain't true. I don't ever pick on nobody to make my ego bloat up. |
You're vain. I was making a general statement, and not something for "you" only. It still stands:
When it's about your ego, and just being right, and appearing to "win", then, it is not Science, and it is not Teaching.
J-
QUOTE (Confused2+Jul 7 2008, 06:13 PM)
On the Internet the only acceptable victim of a joke is yourself.
Ahh, I didn't realize that you were the official dictator o internet etiquette.....
Really now? Well, why doncha quote some posts where me or TheDoc made an effort to be more venomous than other FMers...
Really now? Well, why doncha quote some posts where me or TheDoc made an effort to be more venomous than other FMers...
Your new "accent" is funny, when used sparingly. Otherwise, it's obnoxious.
I'm glad it annoys ya. I'm also glad ya started yer post with an attempt at an insult. Hypocrisy really helps drive yer point home
If so, ya wouldn't have argued about it...
If so, ya wouldn't have argued about it...
I pointed out, that it didn't fit the scenario.
No, ya claimed it didn't. To 'point somethin out' implies yer correct. Bein correct necessitates not usin incorrect assumptions.
Only in yer little head... Context, son. It's important.
Only in yer little head... Context, son. It's important.
You'll have to explain what you mean.
I'm sorry. The whole "InQZ is an idiot" thing musta slipped my mind...
Yer assumin that the FM consists o a bunch o sockpuppets.
Really? It don't apply? Ok then, prove that the FM is a bunch o sockpuppets, then prove we've never read yer posts an I'll concede the point. An I suspect I already know a bit more about statistics than you do, son...
Really? It don't apply? Ok then, prove that the FM is a bunch o sockpuppets, then prove we've never read yer posts an I'll concede the point. An I suspect I already know a bit more about statistics than you do, son...
All those scores are down. It doesn't seem to be consistent with my point. Having a fairly high score, to begin with, prevents the FM from totally screwing someones feedback score, as confused2 is evidence of.
None o those scores are as low as yers, or most o the cranks. Not one o em. An since ya like C2 as an example supposedly 'counter' to my point...
C2's Feedback
He's got pos' from:
Fivedoughnut (the most sockpuppeted member there is, an the only one guilty o yer accusations...)
Ron
Pupamancur
Soundhertz
Alpha (the FM's founding member, I believe...)
GeneSplicer
rpenner
Trippy
...
Seems to me like his feedback score is higher than yers because he's better at physics an debate than you. Same holds true for other cranks. Compared to them, he's an actual friggan scientist with a perfectly lovable personality!
Note that Alpha an Trippy came back aroun to give their first negs to him after he negged them fer no apparent reason, an keep that in mind next time ya use him as an example to try to make yer point. Also, do ya want me to pop up some evidence that he likes to go trollin on members he don't like?
Yer such a liar! Yer first sentence says ya've done none o it, yet yer second sentence admits to doin one o those things, an the post o yers I wrote that in response to has you doin another!
Yer such a liar! Yer first sentence says ya've done none o it, yet yer second sentence admits to doin one o those things, an the post o yers I wrote that in response to has you doin another!
Maybe you haven't looked hard enough? I don't know. You can translate "making fun of", into "negging", if it helps you to see my point.
Then find me an example o that, neggin or makin fun of. Y can't, because ya know I'm right. Well, ya probably could find some cretin makin fun o somebody jes fer askin a question, but I garauntee ya that it won't be one o the current FM members.
They signify individual computers, numnuts. An if some guy posts 100 times on Sapo's joint with 1 IP address, there's a 99.9999999% or so chance that he's NOT the same guy posting another 100 posts all under a different IP address.
They signify individual computers, numnuts. An if some guy posts 100 times on Sapo's joint with 1 IP address, there's a 99.9999999% or so chance that he's NOT the same guy posting another 100 posts all under a different IP address.
Signing in at your girlfriends house doesn't count. See my point? Anybody can "falsify", or create a new IP address. Especially at schools, libraries, internet cafe's, etc. Not to mention the software that can make you appear from anywhere you'd like. There is no substitute for "real people".
Yeah, like all o us have nothin better to do than IP spoofin on the off chance that one o the cranks'll sign up fer Sapo's Joint an check IP addresses, rather than jes assumin they're right without any proof... Yeesh, ever heard o Occam's Razor?
Prove it.
Prove it.
I was making a general statement, and not something for "you" only.
A 'general statement' about a group o people that includes me. Since it does include me, an it doesn't apply to me, it's WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!
An it's still wrong.
Ahh, I didn't realize that you were the official dictator o internet etiquette.....
QUOTE
Try anything else and you get a bunch of people each trying to be more poisonous than the next .. which is exactly what we have here - aka The Forum Mafia.
Really now? Well, why doncha quote some posts where me or TheDoc made an effort to be more venomous than other FMers...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Try anything else and you get a bunch of people each trying to be more poisonous than the next .. which is exactly what we have here - aka The Forum Mafia. |
Really now? Well, why doncha quote some posts where me or TheDoc made an effort to be more venomous than other FMers...
Your new "accent" is funny, when used sparingly. Otherwise, it's obnoxious.
I'm glad it annoys ya. I'm also glad ya started yer post with an attempt at an insult. Hypocrisy really helps drive yer point home
QUOTE
I understood your analogy.
If so, ya wouldn't have argued about it...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I understood your analogy. |
If so, ya wouldn't have argued about it...
I pointed out, that it didn't fit the scenario.
No, ya claimed it didn't. To 'point somethin out' implies yer correct. Bein correct necessitates not usin incorrect assumptions.
QUOTE
I also did not say "faulty", I said "poor". There's a difference.
Only in yer little head... Context, son. It's important.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I also did not say "faulty", I said "poor". There's a difference. |
Only in yer little head... Context, son. It's important.
You'll have to explain what you mean.
I'm sorry. The whole "InQZ is an idiot" thing musta slipped my mind...
Yer assumin that the FM consists o a bunch o sockpuppets.
QUOTE
You're basically right there. But, again, it doesn't apply to this (mine, anyway) scenario. No "plenty of opportunities", no "sizable group of people". Read up on statistics, and come back and tell me what the opinions of 5-10 people say about "the truth".
Really? It don't apply? Ok then, prove that the FM is a bunch o sockpuppets, then prove we've never read yer posts an I'll concede the point. An I suspect I already know a bit more about statistics than you do, son...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're basically right there. But, again, it doesn't apply to this (mine, anyway) scenario. No "plenty of opportunities", no "sizable group of people". Read up on statistics, and come back and tell me what the opinions of 5-10 people say about "the truth". |
Really? It don't apply? Ok then, prove that the FM is a bunch o sockpuppets, then prove we've never read yer posts an I'll concede the point. An I suspect I already know a bit more about statistics than you do, son...
All those scores are down. It doesn't seem to be consistent with my point. Having a fairly high score, to begin with, prevents the FM from totally screwing someones feedback score, as confused2 is evidence of.
None o those scores are as low as yers, or most o the cranks. Not one o em. An since ya like C2 as an example supposedly 'counter' to my point...
C2's Feedback
He's got pos' from:
Fivedoughnut (the most sockpuppeted member there is, an the only one guilty o yer accusations...)
Ron
Pupamancur
Soundhertz
Alpha (the FM's founding member, I believe...)
GeneSplicer
rpenner
Trippy
...
Seems to me like his feedback score is higher than yers because he's better at physics an debate than you. Same holds true for other cranks. Compared to them, he's an actual friggan scientist with a perfectly lovable personality!
Note that Alpha an Trippy came back aroun to give their first negs to him after he negged them fer no apparent reason, an keep that in mind next time ya use him as an example to try to make yer point. Also, do ya want me to pop up some evidence that he likes to go trollin on members he don't like?
QUOTE
I've done none of the above. The closest things are: I have given positive feedback to someone, to counter the parade/bandwagon of negs. I have not given the same, for anyone who has proved to be totally argumentative, beyond reasoning, etc. Basically, to a few "newbies". Also, I do not always follow the "consensus", unless it is well established by experimental fact.
Yer such a liar! Yer first sentence says ya've done none o it, yet yer second sentence admits to doin one o those things, an the post o yers I wrote that in response to has you doin another! QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've done none of the above. The closest things are: I have given positive feedback to someone, to counter the parade/bandwagon of negs. I have not given the same, for anyone who has proved to be totally argumentative, beyond reasoning, etc. Basically, to a few "newbies". Also, I do not always follow the "consensus", unless it is well established by experimental fact. |
Yer such a liar! Yer first sentence says ya've done none o it, yet yer second sentence admits to doin one o those things, an the post o yers I wrote that in response to has you doin another! Maybe you haven't looked hard enough? I don't know. You can translate "making fun of", into "negging", if it helps you to see my point.
Then find me an example o that, neggin or makin fun of. Y can't, because ya know I'm right. Well, ya probably could find some cretin makin fun o somebody jes fer askin a question, but I garauntee ya that it won't be one o the current FM members.
QUOTE
No, I'm not assuming "1 or 2". IP addresses signify "real internet connections", not "real people".
They signify individual computers, numnuts. An if some guy posts 100 times on Sapo's joint with 1 IP address, there's a 99.9999999% or so chance that he's NOT the same guy posting another 100 posts all under a different IP address.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, I'm not assuming "1 or 2". IP addresses signify "real internet connections", not "real people". |
They signify individual computers, numnuts. An if some guy posts 100 times on Sapo's joint with 1 IP address, there's a 99.9999999% or so chance that he's NOT the same guy posting another 100 posts all under a different IP address.
Signing in at your girlfriends house doesn't count. See my point? Anybody can "falsify", or create a new IP address. Especially at schools, libraries, internet cafe's, etc. Not to mention the software that can make you appear from anywhere you'd like. There is no substitute for "real people".
Yeah, like all o us have nothin better to do than IP spoofin on the off chance that one o the cranks'll sign up fer Sapo's Joint an check IP addresses, rather than jes assumin they're right without any proof... Yeesh, ever heard o Occam's Razor?
QUOTE
You're vain.
Prove it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're vain. |
Prove it.
I was making a general statement, and not something for "you" only.
A 'general statement' about a group o people that includes me. Since it does include me, an it doesn't apply to me, it's WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!
QUOTE
It still stands:
An it's still wrong.
You're welcome to go back and read my post again. I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself.
You really fool yourself, that you're sharp. You should listen to the Doctors, and take the medication that was prescribed to you. Part of your disease, is thinking "everything is ok".
It's not.
You said absolutely nothing, and made no points in your last post. And, you anally responded to it line by line, like a sportscaster.
You're just wrong; maybe "not even wrong" is better.
Keep tryin', son.
When you feel like you're ready, sell your beer cans, and buy a plane ticket. I'll be waiting. Any test you want.
You really fool yourself, that you're sharp. You should listen to the Doctors, and take the medication that was prescribed to you. Part of your disease, is thinking "everything is ok".
It's not.
You said absolutely nothing, and made no points in your last post. And, you anally responded to it line by line, like a sportscaster.
You're just wrong; maybe "not even wrong" is better.
Keep tryin', son.
When you feel like you're ready, sell your beer cans, and buy a plane ticket. I'll be waiting. Any test you want.
QUOTE (inQZtive+Jul 7 2008, 04:56 PM)
You're welcome to go back and read my post again. I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself.
You really fool yourself, that you're sharp. You should listen to the Doctors, and take the medication that was prescribed to you. Part of your disease, is thinking "everything is ok".
It's not.
You said absolutely nothing, and made no points in your last post. And, you anally responded to it line by line, like a sportscaster.
You're just wrong; maybe "not even wrong" is better.
Keep tryin', son.
When you feel like you're ready, sell your beer cans, and buy a plane ticket. I'll be waiting. Any test you want.
Translation:
1.) Stick fingers in ears
2.) Scream "LALALALALALALA" at top of your lungs
3.) Continue
You really fool yourself, that you're sharp. You should listen to the Doctors, and take the medication that was prescribed to you. Part of your disease, is thinking "everything is ok".
It's not.
You said absolutely nothing, and made no points in your last post. And, you anally responded to it line by line, like a sportscaster.
You're just wrong; maybe "not even wrong" is better.
Keep tryin', son.
When you feel like you're ready, sell your beer cans, and buy a plane ticket. I'll be waiting. Any test you want.
Translation:
1.) Stick fingers in ears
2.) Scream "LALALALALALALA" at top of your lungs
3.) Continue
No excaza.
It's like: Nothing I said registered with him. Nothing he said registered with me.
Should we continue to argue at the top of our lungs? Nothing I say will change his opinion. Nothing he has said, changed mine.
Sometimes, it's better to agree to disagree.
I've argued with him before, and it was pointless. We've exchanged our "niceties", and now, I think it's better to let the thread continue.
J-
It's like: Nothing I said registered with him. Nothing he said registered with me.
Should we continue to argue at the top of our lungs? Nothing I say will change his opinion. Nothing he has said, changed mine.
Sometimes, it's better to agree to disagree.
I've argued with him before, and it was pointless. We've exchanged our "niceties", and now, I think it's better to let the thread continue.
J-
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jul 7 2008, 05:12 PM)
newton, I'm still waiting for you to "expose" me as a sockpuppet of NOM. Actually, I've been waiting for 4 months; you've remained awfully silent all this time....
i have no time for petty games, NOM. even if you're not NOM, you all have sockpuppets and you are all childishly abusive.
seeking truth is not a pissing contest for me, and the idiotic feedback system means nothing.
have a nice life, and don't expect any reponses from me on anything. i "owe" you sweet eff all, you offensive troll.
i have no time for petty games, NOM. even if you're not NOM, you all have sockpuppets and you are all childishly abusive.
seeking truth is not a pissing contest for me, and the idiotic feedback system means nothing.
have a nice life, and don't expect any reponses from me on anything. i "owe" you sweet eff all, you offensive troll.
QUOTE (newton+Jul 7 2008, 05:45 PM)
seeking truth is not a pissing contest for me, and the idiotic feedback system means nothing.
Minus the constant whining about sockpuppets, right?
Minus the constant whining about sockpuppets, right?
QUOTE (inQZtive+Jul 7 2008, 09:56 PM)
You really fool yourself, that you're sharp. You should listen to the Doctors, and take the medication that was prescribed to you. Part of your disease, is thinking "everything is ok".
Keep complainin about people bein 'picked on' as ya pick on me fer disagreein with ya, hypocrite. It really makes my case fer me.
Keep tellin yerself that, if it makes ya feel better.
Keep tellin yerself that, if it makes ya feel better.
And, you anally responded to it line by line, like a sportscaster.
What can I say? I like to be thorough...
You can keep tellin yerself that, too.
You can keep tellin yerself that, too.
When you feel like you're ready, sell your beer cans, and buy a plane ticket. I'll be waiting. Any test you want.
Are you challengin me to a fight, you idiot?
Ok then, how tall am I?
How much do I weigh?
Do I have any experience with violence?
Do I have any martial arts trainin?
Do I normally carry a weapon?
These are the sorts o things a real man asks about his opponent before pickin a fight, son. Things that matter more than "Has he wounded my pride?". Things that can get ya killed if ya don't ask em, even. I hope fer yer sake that ya don't normally say such stupid things in real life, although I truly doubt ya do. (I'd say that I hope fer the sake o the human gene pool that ya do, but to be honest, I'd rather suffer the fools o this world than let someone die fer no reason.) The simple fact that ya say em on the internet leads me an anyone else with any experience in such matters to think that ya don't have the guts to do it in real life. That's ok though, nothin (much) to be ashamed of.
Funny as hell...
But perfectly acceptable.
Oh, it registered. It was jes wrong, is all.
Oh, it registered. It was jes wrong, is all.
Nothing he said registered with me.
I know. I knew it wouldn't when I first responded to ya. But knowin I ain't accomplishin anythin ain't enough to stop me from pointin out what I see as wrong. (Willful stupidity, that is.)
Not true. Find me some o that proof I asked fer.
Not true. Find me some o that proof I asked fer.
Nothing he has said, changed mine.
Course not, it never even registered...
Indeed, arguin a wrong point-of-view based on wrong assumptions an wrong impressions o people combined with idiotic speculation about their medical history an even more idiotic implications o physical violence is generally pointless. Unless ya get a kick out o it, or it helps satiate yer sense o morality.
Keep complainin about people bein 'picked on' as ya pick on me fer disagreein with ya, hypocrite. It really makes my case fer me.
QUOTE
You said absolutely nothing, and made no points in your last post.
Keep tellin yerself that, if it makes ya feel better.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You said absolutely nothing, and made no points in your last post. |
Keep tellin yerself that, if it makes ya feel better.
And, you anally responded to it line by line, like a sportscaster.
What can I say? I like to be thorough...
QUOTE
You're just wrong; maybe "not even wrong" is better.
You can keep tellin yerself that, too.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're just wrong; maybe "not even wrong" is better. |
You can keep tellin yerself that, too.
When you feel like you're ready, sell your beer cans, and buy a plane ticket. I'll be waiting. Any test you want.
Are you challengin me to a fight, you idiot?
Ok then, how tall am I?
How much do I weigh?
Do I have any experience with violence?
Do I have any martial arts trainin?
Do I normally carry a weapon?
These are the sorts o things a real man asks about his opponent before pickin a fight, son. Things that matter more than "Has he wounded my pride?". Things that can get ya killed if ya don't ask em, even. I hope fer yer sake that ya don't normally say such stupid things in real life, although I truly doubt ya do. (I'd say that I hope fer the sake o the human gene pool that ya do, but to be honest, I'd rather suffer the fools o this world than let someone die fer no reason.) The simple fact that ya say em on the internet leads me an anyone else with any experience in such matters to think that ya don't have the guts to do it in real life. That's ok though, nothin (much) to be ashamed of.
Funny as hell...
But perfectly acceptable.
QUOTE
It's like: Nothing I said registered with him.
Oh, it registered. It was jes wrong, is all.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's like: Nothing I said registered with him. |
Oh, it registered. It was jes wrong, is all.
Nothing he said registered with me.
I know. I knew it wouldn't when I first responded to ya. But knowin I ain't accomplishin anythin ain't enough to stop me from pointin out what I see as wrong. (Willful stupidity, that is.)
QUOTE
Nothing I say will change his opinion.
Not true. Find me some o that proof I asked fer.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Nothing I say will change his opinion. |
Not true. Find me some o that proof I asked fer.
Nothing he has said, changed mine.
Course not, it never even registered...
QUOTE
I've argued with him before, and it was pointless.
Indeed, arguin a wrong point-of-view based on wrong assumptions an wrong impressions o people combined with idiotic speculation about their medical history an even more idiotic implications o physical violence is generally pointless. Unless ya get a kick out o it, or it helps satiate yer sense o morality.
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 7 2008, 10:47 PM)
Minus the constant whining about sockpuppets, right?
who are you? never seen or heard of you before.
i don't whine about sockpuppets. i simply recognise their existence and how they make "scores' in the feedback area completely irrelevant.
cheers, stranger.
who are you? never seen or heard of you before.
i don't whine about sockpuppets. i simply recognise their existence and how they make "scores' in the feedback area completely irrelevant.
cheers, stranger.
QUOTE (newton+Jul 8 2008, 02:47 AM)
who are you? never seen or heard of you before.
i don't whine about sockpuppets. i simply recognise their existence and how they make "scores' in the feedback area completely irrelevant.
cheers, stranger.
He's (the former) fivedoughnut's sockpuppet. (The former) fivedoughnut was TheDoc's sockpuppet. TheDoc is AlphaNumeric's sockpuppet. AlphaNumeric is (the former) Dallas' sockpuppet. (The former) Dallas was Trout's socckpuppet. Trout's Euler's sockpuppet. Euler is N O M's sockpuppet. N O M is Alpha's sockpuppet. Alpha's BenTheMan's sockpuppet. BenTheMan is Tikay's sockpuppet. Tikay is Sapo's sockpuppet. Sapo is THEY's sockpuppet. THEY is Confused2's sockpuppet. Confused2 is StevenA's sockpuppet. StevenA is Farsight's sockpuppet. Farsight's Zarkov's sockpuppet. Finally, Zarkov is my sockpuppet. So he's me.
In a roundabout sorta way.
i don't whine about sockpuppets. i simply recognise their existence and how they make "scores' in the feedback area completely irrelevant.
cheers, stranger.
He's (the former) fivedoughnut's sockpuppet. (The former) fivedoughnut was TheDoc's sockpuppet. TheDoc is AlphaNumeric's sockpuppet. AlphaNumeric is (the former) Dallas' sockpuppet. (The former) Dallas was Trout's socckpuppet. Trout's Euler's sockpuppet. Euler is N O M's sockpuppet. N O M is Alpha's sockpuppet. Alpha's BenTheMan's sockpuppet. BenTheMan is Tikay's sockpuppet. Tikay is Sapo's sockpuppet. Sapo is THEY's sockpuppet. THEY is Confused2's sockpuppet. Confused2 is StevenA's sockpuppet. StevenA is Farsight's sockpuppet. Farsight's Zarkov's sockpuppet. Finally, Zarkov is my sockpuppet. So he's me.
In a roundabout sorta way.
Confirmed. I am a sockpuppet.
I like Physorg. I don't feel intimidated to ask stupid questions. I learn new things almost everyday from this forum and it can be fun.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Jul 8 2008, 09:22 AM)
I don't feel intimidated to ask stupid questions.
Because other people hit the quota for you?
Because other people hit the quota for you?
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 8 2008, 02:30 PM)
Because other people hit the quota for you?
Pretty much.
If this forum were heavily moderated, you'd probably have educated people not answering newbie questions because they were to worried about making a mistake in front of their peers.
Plus I can always ask questions on other forums. Physorg, however, seems unique.
Pretty much.
If this forum were heavily moderated, you'd probably have educated people not answering newbie questions because they were to worried about making a mistake in front of their peers.
Plus I can always ask questions on other forums. Physorg, however, seems unique.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Jul 8 2008, 02:22 PM)
I like Physorg. I don't feel intimidated to ask stupid questions. I learn new things almost everyday from this forum and it can be fun.
Nothing wrong with asking stupid questions, however not listening to sensible evidence supported answers is probably what causes much of the frustration and sometimes animosity (imho)
Nothing wrong with asking stupid questions, however not listening to sensible evidence supported answers is probably what causes much of the frustration and sometimes animosity (imho)
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 7 2008, 06:04 PM)
Also, yer once again assumin the FM is jes one or two guys with sockpuppets, despite the fact that I know for a fact that they're not. Sign up fer Sapo's Joint an look at their IP addresses.
ever heard of a proxy?
the FM have.
ever heard of a proxy?
the FM have.
QUOTE (newton+Jul 8 2008, 03:39 PM)
QUOTE (MjolnirPants @ Jul 7 2008+ 06:04 PM)
Also, yer once again assumin the FM is jes one or two guys with sockpuppets, despite the fact that I know for a fact that they're not. Sign up fer Sapo's Joint an look at their IP addresses.
ever heard of a proxy?
the FM have.
I pointed out a relevant portion for ya, son.
Also, do try to prove it. I think yer attempt might be quite amusin...
ever heard of a proxy?
the FM have.
I pointed out a relevant portion for ya, son.
Also, do try to prove it.
I think yer attempt might be quite amusin...
You really think people take posting on a message board seriously enough to run proxies? Seriously enough to run proxies through TWO boards?
Don't be ridiculous.
Don't be ridiculous.
QUOTE (inQZtive+)
Good evidence:
I have ZERO posts, between Feb 25 2008, and Jun 27 2008. You joined in March, 2008. You immediately were FM member, and began where you left off.. presumably, cecil P abstract>>Dallas>>Alpha>>Pupamancur. Your latest account, TheDoc, posted back to back negatives (1 week), in a large period of time that I did not post at all.
Because I had read some of your posts before I joined as a member, and I happened to think those posts were idiotic.
I can show you a screencap of a PM fivedoughnut sent to me when I was invited into the FM.
I can show you a screencap of a PM fivedoughnut sent to me when I was invited into the FM.
how it is communicated that, "everyone thinks you're an idiot"?
The feedback system is a good indicator.
Emergency private messages may be exchanged between members from time to time. For instance, when the member Bringer-of-Light showed up, I received a PM from <Max> asking me if I had anything to do with him.
Emergency private messages may be exchanged between members from time to time. For instance, when the member Bringer-of-Light showed up, I received a PM from <Max> asking me if I had anything to do with him.
If you don't have this sort of evidence, then we must assume that there really is NO communication going on, at all.
Only there is communication going on. I frequently discuss the cranks and loonies with fivedoughnut, via private messages.
Because the people he argues with - StevenA and Precursor562, for instance - are just internet cranks. Whenever AlphaNumeric challenges them with questions that could verify their claims that they're knowledgeable in a given subject, they just dodge the questions.
Because the people he argues with - StevenA and Precursor562, for instance - are just internet cranks. Whenever AlphaNumeric challenges them with questions that could verify their claims that they're knowledgeable in a given subject, they just dodge the questions.
i have no time for petty games, NOM. even if you're not NOM, you all have sockpuppets
But, of course, you can't prove it.
Calling you a conspiracy theorist nutjob isn't abusive. Prodding you to back up your claims isn't abusive. If you don't like being called an idiot, do something about it, don't sit there and whine.
Calling you a conspiracy theorist nutjob isn't abusive. Prodding you to back up your claims isn't abusive. If you don't like being called an idiot, do something about it, don't sit there and whine.
the idiotic feedback system means nothing.
I'm starting to doubt that statement.
You're just giving more support to my claim that you can't back up your claims. You realize that, don't you?
You're just giving more support to my claim that you can't back up your claims. You realize that, don't you?
i "owe" you sweet eff all, you offensive troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
I have ZERO posts, between Feb 25 2008, and Jun 27 2008. You joined in March, 2008. You immediately were FM member, and began where you left off.. presumably, cecil P abstract>>Dallas>>Alpha>>Pupamancur. Your latest account, TheDoc, posted back to back negatives (1 week), in a large period of time that I did not post at all.
Because I had read some of your posts before I joined as a member, and I happened to think those posts were idiotic.
QUOTE
Can you link any PM's, e-mails, or other data, that show how one "joins" the FM
I can show you a screencap of a PM fivedoughnut sent to me when I was invited into the FM.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Can you link any PM's, e-mails, or other data, that show how one "joins" the FM |
I can show you a screencap of a PM fivedoughnut sent to me when I was invited into the FM.
how it is communicated that, "everyone thinks you're an idiot"?
The feedback system is a good indicator.
QUOTE
Do you have meeting minutes, or something?
Emergency private messages may be exchanged between members from time to time. For instance, when the member Bringer-of-Light showed up, I received a PM from <Max> asking me if I had anything to do with him.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you have meeting minutes, or something? |
Emergency private messages may be exchanged between members from time to time. For instance, when the member Bringer-of-Light showed up, I received a PM from <Max> asking me if I had anything to do with him.
If you don't have this sort of evidence, then we must assume that there really is NO communication going on, at all.
Only there is communication going on. I frequently discuss the cranks and loonies with fivedoughnut, via private messages.
QUOTE
Science shouldn't have a bias; that is exactly my point. If you don't know as much as him, then how do you know he is correct, in any given situation.
Because the people he argues with - StevenA and Precursor562, for instance - are just internet cranks. Whenever AlphaNumeric challenges them with questions that could verify their claims that they're knowledgeable in a given subject, they just dodge the questions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Science shouldn't have a bias; that is exactly my point. If you don't know as much as him, then how do you know he is correct, in any given situation. |
Because the people he argues with - StevenA and Precursor562, for instance - are just internet cranks. Whenever AlphaNumeric challenges them with questions that could verify their claims that they're knowledgeable in a given subject, they just dodge the questions.
i have no time for petty games, NOM. even if you're not NOM, you all have sockpuppets
But, of course, you can't prove it.
QUOTE
and you are all childishly abusive.
Calling you a conspiracy theorist nutjob isn't abusive. Prodding you to back up your claims isn't abusive. If you don't like being called an idiot, do something about it, don't sit there and whine.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and you are all childishly abusive. |
Calling you a conspiracy theorist nutjob isn't abusive. Prodding you to back up your claims isn't abusive. If you don't like being called an idiot, do something about it, don't sit there and whine.
the idiotic feedback system means nothing.
I'm starting to doubt that statement.
QUOTE
don't expect any reponses from me on anything.
You're just giving more support to my claim that you can't back up your claims. You realize that, don't you?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| don't expect any reponses from me on anything. |
You're just giving more support to my claim that you can't back up your claims. You realize that, don't you?
i "owe" you sweet eff all, you offensive troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
QUOTE (From the link above+)
Frequently, someone who has been labelled a troll by a group may seek to redeem their reputation by discrediting their opponents, for example by claiming that other members of the group are closed-minded, conspirators, or trolls themselves.
If this forum were heavily moderated, you'd probably have educated people not answering newbie questions because they were to worried about making a mistake in front of their peers.
Educated people educate themselves by not being afraid to make mistakes. They are relatively few and far between.
Everyone else is just a yes-man ~ copyist/politician.
g.
QUOTE (newton+)
i don't whine about sockpuppets.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=20785
So the FM runs proxies through Sapo's Joint?
Yeah, okay.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=20785
QUOTE
ever heard of a proxy?
the FM have.
the FM have.
So the FM runs proxies through Sapo's Joint?
Yeah, okay.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Jul 8 2008, 03:42 AM)
If this forum were heavily moderated, you'd probably have educated people not answering newbie questions because they were to worried about making a mistake in front of their peers.
Educated people educate themselves by not being afraid to make mistakes. They are relatively few and far between.
Everyone else is just a yes-man ~ copyist/politician.
g.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jul 8 2008, 07:03 PM)
Because the people he argues with - StevenA and Precursor562, for instance - are just internet cranks. Whenever AlphaNumeric challenges them with questions that could verify their claims that they're knowledgeable in a given subject, they just dodge the questions.
I jes wanna point out that a bit o research can prove many o the claims those two make wrong, from the non-existance o infinite sets to the claim that 0.999...!=1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_set
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
An neither o them two ever acknowledges mistakes.
I jes wanna point out that a bit o research can prove many o the claims those two make wrong, from the non-existance o infinite sets to the claim that 0.999...!=1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_set
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
An neither o them two ever acknowledges mistakes.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 8 2008, 04:53 PM)
ever heard of a proxy?
the FM have. [/QUOTE]
I pointed out a relevant portion for ya, son.
Also, do try to prove it. I think yer attempt might be quite amusin...
you seem to be under the impression i care. but, here...this is what i mean:
proxiesanyone could do it.
the FM have. [/QUOTE]
I pointed out a relevant portion for ya, son.
Also, do try to prove it.
I think yer attempt might be quite amusin... you seem to be under the impression i care. but, here...this is what i mean:
proxiesanyone could do it.
The people making the most noise here about sock-puppets are just trying to cover up their own hypocritical use of sock-puppets.
The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion...Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it. (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)
g.
g.
QUOTE (newton+Jul 8 2008, 08:01 PM)
you seem to be under the impression i care. but, here...this is what i mean:
proxiesanyone could do it.
Then why bother postin? Ya durned liar...
I see yer quite familiar with IP spoofin. What does that say about you, then?
I'm still waitin fer some proof o all this sockpuppetry...
proxiesanyone could do it.
Then why bother postin?
Ya durned liar...I see yer quite familiar with IP spoofin. What does that say about you, then?
I'm still waitin fer some proof o all this sockpuppetry...
QUOTE (N O M+Jul 8 2008, 08:24 PM)
The people making the most noise here about sock-puppets are just trying to cover up their own hypocritical use of sock-puppets.
yeah.
my other identities are arthur, grumpy and david benson.
troll away, trolls. i'm out.
p.s. why do i have to 'prove'(something impossible for me to do) the sockpuppet issue, when you fools brag about it, LOL!
ciao, babies.
yeah.
my other identities are arthur, grumpy and david benson.
troll away, trolls. i'm out.
p.s. why do i have to 'prove'(something impossible for me to do) the sockpuppet issue, when you fools brag about it, LOL!
ciao, babies.
You guys really like to be as difficult as possible don't you?
Given a selection of eight FM members TheDoc claimed there were three unique individuals .. in your terms he may be a delusional liar .. obviously I could be wrong but in my opinion he still (for the present) has enough integrity to tell the truth.
Here we see <Max> giving negative feedback to Evans
<Max> Posted: Jun 12 2008, 10:11 PM Negative F*cking imbecile if ever there was one.
Kinda pretending to be two people .. you agree?
Here we see <Max> and Evans giving feeback (to me) withing 60 seconds
Evans Posted: Jun 16 2008, 07:18 PM Negative
<Max> Posted: Jun 16 2008, 07:18 PM Negative -
and again
Evans Posted: Jun 25 2008, 03:25 PM Negative -
<Max> Posted: Jun 25 2008, 03:25 PM Negative -
and again
<Max> Posted: Jul 6 2008, 03:25 AM Negative -
Evans Posted: Jul 6 2008, 03:25 AM Negative -
and to 4DGuy
Evans Posted: Jun 23 2008, 07:53 PM Negative Dumber than a large planetoid full of rocks
<Max> Posted: Jun 23 2008, 07:53 PM Negative Subhuman sh*t.
and to Raphie Frank
Evans Posted: Jun 23 2008, 07:53 PM Negative Dumber than a large planetoid full of rocks
<Max> Posted: Jun 23 2008, 07:53 PM Negative Subhuman sh*t.
Interesting to see that the last four 'negs' are to different people. are identical and are logged within 60 seconds . .. could you do that?
Any comments so far?
-C2.
Given a selection of eight FM members TheDoc claimed there were three unique individuals .. in your terms he may be a delusional liar .. obviously I could be wrong but in my opinion he still (for the present) has enough integrity to tell the truth.
Here we see <Max> giving negative feedback to Evans
<Max> Posted: Jun 12 2008, 10:11 PM Negative F*cking imbecile if ever there was one.
Kinda pretending to be two people .. you agree?
Here we see <Max> and Evans giving feeback (to me) withing 60 seconds
Evans Posted: Jun 16 2008, 07:18 PM Negative
<Max> Posted: Jun 16 2008, 07:18 PM Negative -
and again
Evans Posted: Jun 25 2008, 03:25 PM Negative -
<Max> Posted: Jun 25 2008, 03:25 PM Negative -
and again
<Max> Posted: Jul 6 2008, 03:25 AM Negative -
Evans Posted: Jul 6 2008, 03:25 AM Negative -
and to 4DGuy
Evans Posted: Jun 23 2008, 07:53 PM Negative Dumber than a large planetoid full of rocks
<Max> Posted: Jun 23 2008, 07:53 PM Negative Subhuman sh*t.
and to Raphie Frank
Evans Posted: Jun 23 2008, 07:53 PM Negative Dumber than a large planetoid full of rocks
<Max> Posted: Jun 23 2008, 07:53 PM Negative Subhuman sh*t.
Interesting to see that the last four 'negs' are to different people. are identical and are logged within 60 seconds . .. could you do that?
Any comments so far?
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
Given a selection of eight FM members TheDoc claimed there were three unique individuals .. in your terms he may be a delusional liar
No, because it's clear to anyone with half a brain that of those eight members three were "unique" individuals.
<Max> admitted that he was pretending to be two people.
No, because it's clear to anyone with half a brain that of those eight members three were "unique" individuals.
QUOTE
Here we see <Max> giving negative feedback to Evans
<snip>
Kinda pretending to be two people .. you agree?
<snip>
Kinda pretending to be two people .. you agree?
<Max> admitted that he was pretending to be two people.
QUOTE (newton+Jul 8 2008, 11:50 PM)
yeah.
my other identities are arthur, grumpy and david benson.
troll away, trolls. i'm out.
p.s. why do i have to 'prove'(something impossible for me to do) the sockpuppet issue, when you fools brag about it, LOL!
ciao, babies.
spewton,
Son, we know your ignoramus ego's writing cheques your brainfuck mind can't cash - strangely, your member title is "counterfoil" - why retain the (great excuse for suicide) evidence ?
my other identities are arthur, grumpy and david benson.
troll away, trolls. i'm out.
p.s. why do i have to 'prove'(something impossible for me to do) the sockpuppet issue, when you fools brag about it, LOL!
ciao, babies.
spewton,
Son, we know your ignoramus ego's writing cheques your brainfuck mind can't cash - strangely, your member title is "counterfoil" - why retain the (great excuse for suicide) evidence ?
QUOTE (inQZtive+Jul 7 2008, 07:54 AM)
6. (consider this for "arguments sake") Linking papers, websites, etc, with "a name" that you say is you, isn't proof. I'm not asking for more (you'd really be twisted to go through all that, as you said). Give me 1/2 hour, and I can make an identical set of claims, only falsifiable by actually contacting the person. My real point is not "you are a fake", it is, "be authentic". With your real name, as a signature, or in your title, whatever, you are much more obliged to act a little more "human" in response to the absurdities that you have to deal with
If you bothered to click around the links I provided you'd find the following :
My website which is hosted at a .ac.uk address, which is the UK university ending for URLs. My name, George Weatherill, is listed as a postgraduate in that department, where I have given seminars and lead discussions and I teach undergraduates. I attended Cambridge as an undergraduate, where I did some rowing and was part of NRich, an official university maths help site run by Cambridge. I have previously discussed my work and am acknowledge in a paper in that area.
So I'd like to see you provide a comprehensive list of 'fake websites' like that, going back years, covering multiple independent and well established websites and organisations, all for the purposes of fooling a couple of idiots on forums.
Next time, actually read the links I provide. I don't put my name in my signature because while I don't mind admitting who I am, I don't want to advertise it. If cranks want to know who I am, they can do the tiny amount of research needed to work it out. Besides, you'd be suprised the spam I get from nuts wanting me to evaluate their crap.
If you bothered to click around the links I provided you'd find the following :
My website which is hosted at a .ac.uk address, which is the UK university ending for URLs. My name, George Weatherill, is listed as a postgraduate in that department, where I have given seminars and lead discussions and I teach undergraduates. I attended Cambridge as an undergraduate, where I did some rowing and was part of NRich, an official university maths help site run by Cambridge. I have previously discussed my work and am acknowledge in a paper in that area.
So I'd like to see you provide a comprehensive list of 'fake websites' like that, going back years, covering multiple independent and well established websites and organisations, all for the purposes of fooling a couple of idiots on forums.
Next time, actually read the links I provide. I don't put my name in my signature because while I don't mind admitting who I am, I don't want to advertise it. If cranks want to know who I am, they can do the tiny amount of research needed to work it out. Besides, you'd be suprised the spam I get from nuts wanting me to evaluate their crap.
QUOTE (inQZtive+Jul 7 2008, 07:54 AM)
you are much more obliged to act a little more "human" in response to the absurdities that you have to deal with. These people are surely "in the dark", but they are people. You also regularly make "sweeping generalizations" about "all cranks" etc. My complaint there, is that Science is questioning, testing, confirming. If we begin to belittle anyone who dares to question, or seeks confirmation, we are "anti-science"
I don't belittle people who say "I don't agree with string theory" or "I have a conceptual problem with quantum mechanics", I belittle people like Farsight who claims to have all the answers but cannot answer a simple direct question. I belittle people like Precursor for threads like this. I belittle people like StevenA who are reduced to making up their own definitions for words. I belittle people who say "I've researched relativity and it's wrong because...." and then they make an error a 1st year physics student wouldn't make, proving they haven't even read a book on relativity.
Science is about learning. Cranks are not. Cranks come to websites not to learn or to discuss but to proclaim how they have all the answers but refuse to answer direct questions. I don't claim to have all the answers. The problem is I have answers to most of the questions cranks ask, because cranks don't generally know enough to ask questions I don't know the answers to.
For instance, I know how to do dimensional regularisation to compute 1st loop beta functions and thus compute the value of the fine structure constant at 90GeV (it's 1/128, not the 1/137 it is at 0 GeV). This is light years beyond anything cranks here know. Most don't even know it changes with energy (despite Farsight claiming he's 'explained it), never mind know how to model it. Now there's buckets and buckets and buckets I don't know about renormalisation. It's a vast topic. But what I don't know, cranks dont' even know exists, so they cannot ask me questions on it. Hence I seem to have 'all' the answers and thus am called arrogant. No, I'm just confident in what I do know. Cranks don't even know they don't know.
Science is about learning. Cranks are not. Cranks come to websites not to learn or to discuss but to proclaim how they have all the answers but refuse to answer direct questions. I don't claim to have all the answers. The problem is I have answers to most of the questions cranks ask, because cranks don't generally know enough to ask questions I don't know the answers to.
For instance, I know how to do dimensional regularisation to compute 1st loop beta functions and thus compute the value of the fine structure constant at 90GeV (it's 1/128, not the 1/137 it is at 0 GeV). This is light years beyond anything cranks here know. Most don't even know it changes with energy (despite Farsight claiming he's 'explained it), never mind know how to model it. Now there's buckets and buckets and buckets I don't know about renormalisation. It's a vast topic. But what I don't know, cranks dont' even know exists, so they cannot ask me questions on it. Hence I seem to have 'all' the answers and thus am called arrogant. No, I'm just confident in what I do know. Cranks don't even know they don't know.
QUOTE (inQZtive+Jul 7 2008, 07:54 AM)
. Again, this has a domino effect, because of your role model status here. I can't imagine you treating real students in a classroom that way. I understand that there are limits, and you are pushed past them by the type who are pushing there own pet theory, regardless of how wrong. Help them as much as possible, and then let them go. .
Real students turn up to my teaching classes because they want to learn. Those who don't want to learn or are too hungover don't turn up. A student isn't going to stick his hand up while I explain vector calculus and Stoke's Theorem and say the kind of crap NeoNo.1 comes out with, because if that's their attitude they'd never have got into the university in the first place. Cranks don't sit exams, they avoid learning and they are generally too stupid to learn it if they tried, but they 'come to classes' and stick their hand up to tell everyone they have all the answers. Students don't do that. Hence I treat the students who I teach with respect. If they want to turn up, I'm happy to teach them. I go out of my way to provide extra material for those finding it too easy or to give extra attention to those who seem to have problems. They can come to my office or email me. I'm known for writing out lengthy, detailed, corrections when I mark. Too many markers just put ticks and crosses. I explain why someone is wrong, often giving half page solutions and explainations to short questions.
I offered NeoNo.1 such help many times. He refuses it.
I offered NeoNo.1 such help many times. He refuses it.
QUOTE (inQZtive+Jul 7 2008, 07:54 AM)
We are all ignorant of something
Farsight thinks he's 'explained physics'. He claims to have all the answers. And yet he cannot answer questions like "Give me one phenomena you can model with your work". NeoNo.1 posts (on sciforums under the name Reiku) things on black holes, renormalisation, quantum field theory and yet he cannot multiply out (a+
(c+d). He failed stuff 10 year olds learn but claims to know stuff Cambridge graduates just learn when they are 22!
Cranks never think they are wrong or have gaps in their understanding. There's tons I know. But there's tons of tons of tons of tons of tons of tons of tons I don't know. The problem cranks have is that when I say "Today I was reading about SU(3) structure and how putting non-zero torsion into a Calabi Yau space results in the Kaluza-Klein tower breaking down and the complex structure 2-form no longer being expanded in terms of moduli" it goes completely over their head. That is what I was reading today. It's what my supervisor publishes work in. It's what I want to learn. But it's complete gibberish to almost everyone who doesn't do theoretical physics (and it's gibberish to most of them too!). I'm not going to apologise for the fact I'm willing to put in years of hard work to get where I am and cranks are too lazy, lying and stupid to get where I've got.
Boo frinkin' woo.
(c+d). He failed stuff 10 year olds learn but claims to know stuff Cambridge graduates just learn when they are 22!Cranks never think they are wrong or have gaps in their understanding. There's tons I know. But there's tons of tons of tons of tons of tons of tons of tons I don't know. The problem cranks have is that when I say "Today I was reading about SU(3) structure and how putting non-zero torsion into a Calabi Yau space results in the Kaluza-Klein tower breaking down and the complex structure 2-form no longer being expanded in terms of moduli" it goes completely over their head. That is what I was reading today. It's what my supervisor publishes work in. It's what I want to learn. But it's complete gibberish to almost everyone who doesn't do theoretical physics (and it's gibberish to most of them too!). I'm not going to apologise for the fact I'm willing to put in years of hard work to get where I am and cranks are too lazy, lying and stupid to get where I've got.
Boo frinkin' woo.
Alpha, its no use, we are all "fakes" on the internet.... and it seems that criticism is even valid from idiots !
LOL, I refuse to respond, and even though I have done as you have above, even to 'respected' hosts, LOL, I still get banned !!!!!!! par for this mad world
Just live with it.... if you know of a "decent" and respectful science forum, where the mods don't tolerate shite throwing, or personal attacks.... PLEASE provide a link
There is much to discuss, and much to learn, without all the insinuations, slander and
distractions of ignorant posters.
I tried to get such a forum started... I refuse to baby sit a forum..... so I closed and locked it up.
The internet is such a wonderful device to link minds from all over the world... and yet the vermin destroy any potential. This has been so for over a decade... and it is becoming worse.
If the mods read this... clean up the place!
I am tired of reading responses that say nothing, just waste time,...... negating any reasonable discussion.
LOL, I refuse to respond, and even though I have done as you have above, even to 'respected' hosts, LOL, I still get banned !!!!!!! par for this mad world
Just live with it.... if you know of a "decent" and respectful science forum, where the mods don't tolerate shite throwing, or personal attacks.... PLEASE provide a link
There is much to discuss, and much to learn, without all the insinuations, slander and
distractions of ignorant posters.
I tried to get such a forum started... I refuse to baby sit a forum..... so I closed and locked it up.
The internet is such a wonderful device to link minds from all over the world... and yet the vermin destroy any potential. This has been so for over a decade... and it is becoming worse.
If the mods read this... clean up the place!
I am tired of reading responses that say nothing, just waste time,...... negating any reasonable discussion.
QUOTE (Delia+Jul 9 2008, 01:10 AM)
spewton,
Son, we know your ignoramus ego's writing cheques your brainfuck mind can't cash - strangely, your member title is "counterfoil" - why retain the (great excuse for suicide) evidence ?
this is indeed a sad day for physorg.
i feel sorry for you.
Son, we know your ignoramus ego's writing cheques your brainfuck mind can't cash - strangely, your member title is "counterfoil" - why retain the (great excuse for suicide) evidence ?
this is indeed a sad day for physorg.
i feel sorry for you.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jul 9 2008, 12:26 AM)
I am tired of reading responses that say nothing, just waste time,...... negating any reasonable discussion.
Us too, stop posting.
Us too, stop posting.
QED eczema.
classic
classic
AN, I promised you a response. I've simply been too busy with work to have a chance... but I feel I basically presented the points I wished to make here:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=354901
For others, I believe the following post, by Ivars is not the post of someone meriting the kind of negativity and, frankly, abuse, he has received upon this forum.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry355998
Best,
Raphie
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=354901
For others, I believe the following post, by Ivars is not the post of someone meriting the kind of negativity and, frankly, abuse, he has received upon this forum.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry355998
Best,
Raphie
The Doc
Right; great argument. Which one, the one where I agreed with AN, against the posts of Good Elf? Nevermind, it's not important that you show why. You are entitled to your opinion. Because of your behavior (ie. what you say in posts), your opinion doesn't matter to me.
Great. PM's can be sent between sock-puppets; point taken. Fivedoughnut was banned in 2007; that makes you look like a liar, and a fool.
But, we'll just blame everything on him, right? That sound's like you're saying "everyone is a fivedoughnut sock-puppet"; not me. I've said many times, that it doesn't matter how many there are in the gang, just what the gang does.
Get lost.
You don't know Science. You contribute/support nothing but anger, tantrums, profanity, and abuse.
Go to your other forum, and stay there until you can behave.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have ZERO posts, between Feb 25 2008, and Jun 27 2008. You joined in March, 2008. You immediately were FM member, and began where you left off.. presumably, cecil P abstract>>Dallas>>Alpha>>Pupamancur. Your latest account, TheDoc, posted back to back negatives (1 week), in a large period of time that I did not post at all. Because I had read some of your posts before I joined as a member, and I happened to think those posts were idiotic. |
Right; great argument. Which one, the one where I agreed with AN, against the posts of Good Elf? Nevermind, it's not important that you show why. You are entitled to your opinion. Because of your behavior (ie. what you say in posts), your opinion doesn't matter to me.
QUOTE
I can show you a screencap of a PM fivedoughnut sent to me when I was invited into the FM.
I received a PM from <Max> asking me if I had anything to do with him.
<Max> admitted that he was pretending to be two people.
I frequently discuss the cranks and loonies with fivedoughnut, via private messages.
I received a PM from <Max> asking me if I had anything to do with him.
<Max> admitted that he was pretending to be two people.
I frequently discuss the cranks and loonies with fivedoughnut, via private messages.
Great. PM's can be sent between sock-puppets; point taken. Fivedoughnut was banned in 2007; that makes you look like a liar, and a fool.
But, we'll just blame everything on him, right? That sound's like you're saying "everyone is a fivedoughnut sock-puppet"; not me. I've said many times, that it doesn't matter how many there are in the gang, just what the gang does.
Get lost.
You don't know Science. You contribute/support nothing but anger, tantrums, profanity, and abuse.
Go to your other forum, and stay there until you can behave.
QUOTE (inQZtive+)
Right; great argument. Which one, the one where I agreed with AN, against the posts of Good Elf?
No. You know, the one where you accuse Gehn of being immature right before you make an immature statement?
Yes, and then he came back as Jeremy Fisher, Merlinus, Rabbit, Charles Lee Ray, AE_JO_59, Baby, Count Aloucard, Princess Bluebell, Cecil P Abstract, Crankoid, Username, Moomin, Lizzy Frog, AgentX20, Sec, Jesus Christ, Dr. Fred A Wolf and Deila.
One need only go through the posting histories of those accounts to validate what I'm saying.
Yes, and then he came back as Jeremy Fisher, Merlinus, Rabbit, Charles Lee Ray, AE_JO_59, Baby, Count Aloucard, Princess Bluebell, Cecil P Abstract, Crankoid, Username, Moomin, Lizzy Frog, AgentX20, Sec, Jesus Christ, Dr. Fred A Wolf and Deila.
One need only go through the posting histories of those accounts to validate what I'm saying.
But, we'll just blame everything on him, right? That sound's like you're saying "everyone is a fivedoughnut sock-puppet"; not me.
Except I'm not saying "everyone is a fivedoughnut sockpuppet". I'm saying that fivedoughnut has come back with several sockpuppets, and in several of those guises (Username, Sec) he has exchanged PMs with me.
No.
No.
You don't know Science.
I have enough common sense to not go around claiming to be the next Galileo.
I'm not angry, not in the slightest. Only amused.
I'm not angry, not in the slightest. Only amused.
tantrums
Cite one instance of me throwing a tantrum.
Cite one instance of me hurling insults containing profanity.
Cite one instance of me hurling insults containing profanity.
and abuse.
You people seem to think "abuse" = calling someone an idiot because they think they're better than the experts. And, as before, you are wrong.
Bzzt, no, sorry. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
No. You know, the one where you accuse Gehn of being immature right before you make an immature statement?
QUOTE
Fivedoughnut was banned in 2007;
Yes, and then he came back as Jeremy Fisher, Merlinus, Rabbit, Charles Lee Ray, AE_JO_59, Baby, Count Aloucard, Princess Bluebell, Cecil P Abstract, Crankoid, Username, Moomin, Lizzy Frog, AgentX20, Sec, Jesus Christ, Dr. Fred A Wolf and Deila.
One need only go through the posting histories of those accounts to validate what I'm saying.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Fivedoughnut was banned in 2007; |
Yes, and then he came back as Jeremy Fisher, Merlinus, Rabbit, Charles Lee Ray, AE_JO_59, Baby, Count Aloucard, Princess Bluebell, Cecil P Abstract, Crankoid, Username, Moomin, Lizzy Frog, AgentX20, Sec, Jesus Christ, Dr. Fred A Wolf and Deila.
One need only go through the posting histories of those accounts to validate what I'm saying.
But, we'll just blame everything on him, right? That sound's like you're saying "everyone is a fivedoughnut sock-puppet"; not me.
Except I'm not saying "everyone is a fivedoughnut sockpuppet". I'm saying that fivedoughnut has come back with several sockpuppets, and in several of those guises (Username, Sec) he has exchanged PMs with me.
QUOTE
Get lost.
No.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Get lost. |
No.
You don't know Science.
I have enough common sense to not go around claiming to be the next Galileo.
QUOTE
You contribute/support nothing but anger
I'm not angry, not in the slightest. Only amused.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You contribute/support nothing but anger |
I'm not angry, not in the slightest. Only amused.
tantrums
Cite one instance of me throwing a tantrum.
QUOTE
profanity
Cite one instance of me hurling insults containing profanity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| profanity |
Cite one instance of me hurling insults containing profanity.
and abuse.
You people seem to think "abuse" = calling someone an idiot because they think they're better than the experts. And, as before, you are wrong.
QUOTE
Go to your other forum, and stay there until you can behave.
Bzzt, no, sorry. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
BDW/MP
You're a real basket case.
You call me an idiot, I welcome you to "any test you want".
You respond with a chapter from a modern day Zane Grey novel.
OK, we'll take the broadest possible interpretation of "test". I already know your "stats", because you've posted them elsewhere.
The "any test you want" offer still stands, boy.
OK, we'll take the broadest possible interpretation of "test". I already know your "stats", because you've posted them elsewhere.
The "any test you want" offer still stands, boy.
ya probably could find some cretin makin fun o somebody jes fer askin a question, but I garauntee ya that it won't be one o the current FM members.
Trout, Evans, Max just did it to "gre", last week. It happens all the time. I'm not going to write a book for you, to "prove" it.
So, you agree that IP's are not "real people"; good. The part about Sapo's joint" (subject change) is irrelevant. We're not talking about that forum, are we? Change your location, change your IP. It's that simple.
You're a real basket case.
You call me an idiot, I welcome you to "any test you want".
You respond with a chapter from a modern day Zane Grey novel.
QUOTE
Are you challengin me to a fight, you idiot?
Ok then, how tall am I?
How much do I weigh?
Do I have any experience with violence?
Do I have any martial arts trainin?
Do I normally carry a weapon?
These are the sorts o things a real man asks about his opponent before pickin a fight, son.
Ok then, how tall am I?
How much do I weigh?
Do I have any experience with violence?
Do I have any martial arts trainin?
Do I normally carry a weapon?
These are the sorts o things a real man asks about his opponent before pickin a fight, son.
OK, we'll take the broadest possible interpretation of "test". I already know your "stats", because you've posted them elsewhere.
The "any test you want" offer still stands, boy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are you challengin me to a fight, you idiot? Ok then, how tall am I? How much do I weigh? Do I have any experience with violence? Do I have any martial arts trainin? Do I normally carry a weapon? These are the sorts o things a real man asks about his opponent before pickin a fight, son. |
OK, we'll take the broadest possible interpretation of "test". I already know your "stats", because you've posted them elsewhere.
The "any test you want" offer still stands, boy.
ya probably could find some cretin makin fun o somebody jes fer askin a question, but I garauntee ya that it won't be one o the current FM members.
Trout, Evans, Max just did it to "gre", last week. It happens all the time. I'm not going to write a book for you, to "prove" it.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, I'm not assuming "1 or 2". IP addresses signify "real internet connections", not "real people". They signify individual computers, numnuts. An if some guy posts 100 times on Sapo's joint with 1 IP address, there's a 99.9999999% or so chance that he's NOT the same guy posting another 100 posts all under a different IP address. |
So, you agree that IP's are not "real people"; good. The part about Sapo's joint" (subject change) is irrelevant. We're not talking about that forum, are we? Change your location, change your IP. It's that simple.
QUOTE
Acusin post-graduates in physics o bein chatboxes, or o not knowin anything about physics or mathematics, accusin mathematicians o not knowin mathematics, refusin to accept the scientific consensus on any number o questions, includin the definition o physics or maths jargon words, accusin people o bein sock-puppets o each other with no proof or even evidence, claimin to be able to do things then refusin to do so, givin people positive feedback jes cause the wrong person dislikes em, an various other crank activities here are conducive to that?
No, I'm not a "liar". My second sentence says "the closest thing". That means "not the same", but similar enough to include, with modification. That's integrity, to include it. I stand behind giving gre a pos, to offset the behavior ot Trout-Evans-Max, noted above. I also plainly stated, several times, that "there can be no proof" of sock-puppetry. It's a side issue to the subject of bad behavior. Get it now?
You did that for me.
The argument here, in case it's no longer clear is:
There are people acting very badly (profanity, anti-science, abuse, etc.) here, and they are doing so "multiply", ie. with more than one account at a time. They have shown to be "former, banned members". There can be no "proof" of this. There doesn't need to be "proof", to be "against it". It's the behavior, not the "quantity of offenders".
Now, either you support this, or you don't. If they are saying "I'm the mafia", and you are saying the same, then we have "guilt by association". If you don't like that, change the association. Come out against this behavior; not come out attacking those who are against it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Acusin post-graduates in physics o bein chatboxes, or o not knowin anything about physics or mathematics, accusin mathematicians o not knowin mathematics, refusin to accept the scientific consensus on any number o questions, includin the definition o physics or maths jargon words, accusin people o bein sock-puppets o each other with no proof or even evidence, claimin to be able to do things then refusin to do so, givin people positive feedback jes cause the wrong person dislikes em, an various other crank activities here are conducive to that? I've done none of the above. The closest things are: I have given positive feedback to someone, to counter the parade/bandwagon of negs. I have not given the same, for anyone who has proved to be totally argumentative, beyond reasoning, etc. Basically, to a few "newbies". Also, I do not always follow the "consensus", unless it is well established by experimental fact. Yer such a liar! Yer first sentence says ya've done none o it, yet yer second sentence admits to doin one o those things |
No, I'm not a "liar". My second sentence says "the closest thing". That means "not the same", but similar enough to include, with modification. That's integrity, to include it. I stand behind giving gre a pos, to offset the behavior ot Trout-Evans-Max, noted above. I also plainly stated, several times, that "there can be no proof" of sock-puppetry. It's a side issue to the subject of bad behavior. Get it now?
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're vain. Prove it. |
You did that for me.
The argument here, in case it's no longer clear is:
There are people acting very badly (profanity, anti-science, abuse, etc.) here, and they are doing so "multiply", ie. with more than one account at a time. They have shown to be "former, banned members". There can be no "proof" of this. There doesn't need to be "proof", to be "against it". It's the behavior, not the "quantity of offenders".
Now, either you support this, or you don't. If they are saying "I'm the mafia", and you are saying the same, then we have "guilt by association". If you don't like that, change the association. Come out against this behavior; not come out attacking those who are against it.
Only a complete idiot would praise the posts of a dishonest little idiot who likes to pretends to know about things he doesn't. The fact that the thread starter also likes to play pretend maths on the internet is no surprise.
Seriously, you people need to get a life.
Seriously, you people need to get a life.
Alphanumeric,
Ad hominem. I did click, I did read.
You didn't "consider for "arguments sake". I am not saying what you are defending:
I'm simply talking about "identity theft". A crank could simply claim to be you, and use your credentials, in the same way that a thief uses "stolen" credit.
"I'm not asking for more", and "you're not a fake", mean I believe you.
Your treatment of hard-headed cranks, is also not being questioned. It is about the people who are here to learn, and are just "asking questions". (even seemingly stupid questions)
It would be nice, for example, to see some "negs" from Alphanumeric (or any one else supporting Science, and Education) in the feedback of these mafia clones, who are not defending these principles, but rather, attacking them.
It would be nice, to see such strong character, that there might be a response like, "don't bother supporting me with a "pos", because you are "anti-science", in their feedback. Or, a "neg" to the people who do support them.
Actually, what would be nice, is if we had the moderators actively eliminating these people, and the spammers, and the cranks, from the forum. But, until then...
We have to do it, with what we have right now.
On the "attitude" thing. You said:
I'm simply talking about "identity theft". A crank could simply claim to be you, and use your credentials, in the same way that a thief uses "stolen" credit.
"I'm not asking for more", and "you're not a fake", mean I believe you.
Your treatment of hard-headed cranks, is also not being questioned. It is about the people who are here to learn, and are just "asking questions". (even seemingly stupid questions)
It would be nice, for example, to see some "negs" from Alphanumeric (or any one else supporting Science, and Education) in the feedback of these mafia clones, who are not defending these principles, but rather, attacking them.
It would be nice, to see such strong character, that there might be a response like, "don't bother supporting me with a "pos", because you are "anti-science", in their feedback. Or, a "neg" to the people who do support them.
Actually, what would be nice, is if we had the moderators actively eliminating these people, and the spammers, and the cranks, from the forum. But, until then...
We have to do it, with what we have right now.
On the "attitude" thing. You said:
But there's tons of tons of tons of tons of tons of tons of tons I don't know.
That is refreshing to read.
Barakan said this to you the other day, which I can't say any better:
If we leave our "opinions", and "credentials" out of the argument, we are forced to rely on facts. Sometimes, when researching the "facts", to support an argument, we learn that our "opinion" was wrong. If ego is out in front, "opinion" is usually believed (falsely) to be "fact".
People (like FM) who read your arguments, that are solely based on facts, and not "because of who I am", are likely to get a different perspective on how Science works. It's not about opinions, emotion, status, etc. It's about well constructed, well communicated, factual arguments. I would just like to see more of that.
A serious question .. actually this is an open forum with (currently) 240 people viewing and it looks to me like Euler is very much in favour of "this sort of behaviour" - let's hope some of his students are reading this.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 6. (consider this for "arguments sake") Linking papers, websites, etc, with "a name" that you say is you, isn't proof. I'm not asking for more (you'd really be twisted to go through all that, as you said). Give me 1/2 hour, and I can make an identical set of claims, only falsifiable by actually contacting the person. My real point is not "you are a fake", it is, "be authentic". With your real name, as a signature, or in your title, whatever, you are much more obliged to act a little more "human" in response to the absurdities that you have to deal with If you bothered to click around the links I provided you'd find the following : ------- Next time, actually read the links I provide. |
Ad hominem. I did click, I did read.
You didn't "consider for "arguments sake". I am not saying what you are defending:
QUOTE
So I'd like to see you provide a comprehensive list of 'fake websites' like that, going back years, covering multiple independent and well established websites and organisations, all for the purposes of fooling a couple of idiots on forums.
I'm simply talking about "identity theft". A crank could simply claim to be you, and use your credentials, in the same way that a thief uses "stolen" credit.
"I'm not asking for more", and "you're not a fake", mean I believe you.
Your treatment of hard-headed cranks, is also not being questioned. It is about the people who are here to learn, and are just "asking questions". (even seemingly stupid questions)
It would be nice, for example, to see some "negs" from Alphanumeric (or any one else supporting Science, and Education) in the feedback of these mafia clones, who are not defending these principles, but rather, attacking them.
It would be nice, to see such strong character, that there might be a response like, "don't bother supporting me with a "pos", because you are "anti-science", in their feedback. Or, a "neg" to the people who do support them.
Actually, what would be nice, is if we had the moderators actively eliminating these people, and the spammers, and the cranks, from the forum. But, until then...
We have to do it, with what we have right now.
On the "attitude" thing. You said:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So I'd like to see you provide a comprehensive list of 'fake websites' like that, going back years, covering multiple independent and well established websites and organisations, all for the purposes of fooling a couple of idiots on forums. |
I'm simply talking about "identity theft". A crank could simply claim to be you, and use your credentials, in the same way that a thief uses "stolen" credit.
"I'm not asking for more", and "you're not a fake", mean I believe you.
Your treatment of hard-headed cranks, is also not being questioned. It is about the people who are here to learn, and are just "asking questions". (even seemingly stupid questions)
It would be nice, for example, to see some "negs" from Alphanumeric (or any one else supporting Science, and Education) in the feedback of these mafia clones, who are not defending these principles, but rather, attacking them.
It would be nice, to see such strong character, that there might be a response like, "don't bother supporting me with a "pos", because you are "anti-science", in their feedback. Or, a "neg" to the people who do support them.
Actually, what would be nice, is if we had the moderators actively eliminating these people, and the spammers, and the cranks, from the forum. But, until then...
We have to do it, with what we have right now.
On the "attitude" thing. You said:
But there's tons of tons of tons of tons of tons of tons of tons I don't know.
That is refreshing to read.
Barakan said this to you the other day, which I can't say any better:
QUOTE
Please remember that no matter how similar another discipline may be to yours, that doesn't make you an instant expert in it.
If we leave our "opinions", and "credentials" out of the argument, we are forced to rely on facts. Sometimes, when researching the "facts", to support an argument, we learn that our "opinion" was wrong. If ego is out in front, "opinion" is usually believed (falsely) to be "fact".
People (like FM) who read your arguments, that are solely based on facts, and not "because of who I am", are likely to get a different perspective on how Science works. It's not about opinions, emotion, status, etc. It's about well constructed, well communicated, factual arguments. I would just like to see more of that.
inQZtard is merely a pathetic loser who suffers little patsy tantrums every time his math pretence is exposed by Euler & AN etc - The End.
Hey Euler, you got yourself a new buddy.
It would seem the lunatics have (finally) taken over the asylum.
QUOTE (Confused2+Jul 13 2008, 08:20 PM)
Hey Euler, you got yourself a new buddy.
Does this mean you wont be asking for my help anymore?
Does this mean you wont be asking for my help anymore?
Confused2 Posted on Today at 8:47 PM
It would seem the lunatics have (finally) taken over the asylum.
No, those 2 (Delia/BMF) are scheduled for "release" this week!!
What about you, Euler? You seem to be impervious to the F-Bomb.
Is that the way you "roll" in your class-room?
It would seem the lunatics have (finally) taken over the asylum.
No, those 2 (Delia/BMF) are scheduled for "release" this week!!
What about you, Euler? You seem to be impervious to the F-Bomb.
Is that the way you "roll" in your class-room?
You'll look after the littlefella won't you? He hasn't been the same since BDW went redneck. He needs someone like you to bring out the unpleasantness that lies within.
QUOTE (inQZtive+Jul 13 2008, 09:10 PM)
What about you, Euler? You seem to be impervious to the F-Bomb.
Is that the way you "roll" in your class-room?
Are you making a joke? It's not clear to me...
Is that the way you "roll" in your class-room?
Are you making a joke? It's not clear to me...
Yikes!!
Is there a cure for Coprolalia? Actually, since we're on the Internet, we should look for Copropraxia (resulting in banned photos), and Coprographia (resulting in banned sock-puppets).
Maybe, this is more of a "Religious" thing; we should call a Priest.
Is there a cure for Coprolalia? Actually, since we're on the Internet, we should look for Copropraxia (resulting in banned photos), and Coprographia (resulting in banned sock-puppets).
Maybe, this is more of a "Religious" thing; we should call a Priest.
Euler
(that last one was not for you)
It's not clear to me, either. If it's serious, but funny, does that make it a "joke"?
Just looking at the "proud sponsors" of your positive feedback, and noticing a lot of known "gang" members. You know "the drive by negs", and the "suicidal F-bombers".
I'm wondering if you are for, or against this sort of behavior.
Do/would you put up with it, in your class?
(that last one was not for you)
QUOTE
Are you making a joke? It's not clear to me...
It's not clear to me, either. If it's serious, but funny, does that make it a "joke"?
Just looking at the "proud sponsors" of your positive feedback, and noticing a lot of known "gang" members. You know "the drive by negs", and the "suicidal F-bombers".
I'm wondering if you are for, or against this sort of behavior.
Do/would you put up with it, in your class?
But "Dr" Fred A Wolf thought it was funny!
QUOTE
Do/would you put up with it, in your class?
A serious question .. actually this is an open forum with (currently) 240 people viewing and it looks to me like Euler is very much in favour of "this sort of behaviour" - let's hope some of his students are reading this.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.