If you are tired of the endless back and forth between you and another party, or between two other parties, bring the issue here to get my opinion. Be prepared to actually fight for your case.
1) You get one post to complain. Append it to this thread. Post a specific and detailed complaint, specify who the offender is, state what you would like done, and give a reason why that would be good for the forum to do as you wish. Evidence is good.
2) Defendant(s) has/have a short period in which to respond. 7 days or 7 posts, whichever is less. Defendant may also file a cross complaint, but if a simple defense, should certainly explain why the complaint didn't happen as stated, why the complaint is wrong about what the good of the forum is, or why the complaint is mistaken in some other fundamental.
3) If the Defendant files a cross-complaint, it must be in the same post as the defense, and must contain the elements of a real complaint.
4) If no cross-complaint is filed, the original complainer has 7 days or 7 posts to respond, only if there was defense filed.
5) If a cross-complaint is filed, the original complainer has 7 days or 7 posts to respond and present a defense.
6) If a cross-complaint is filed, the original defendant has 7 days or 7 posts to respond only to the defense sections of the original complainer.
7) Joint complaints should be drafted together and filed by one user, with all other parties concurring with simple statements that they too are joining.
8) Complaints against multiple parties are only allowed for conspiracy claims, which like all other complaints must be made in detail.
No, I'm not here for your hurt feelings, I'm here for the good of healthy discussion. I'm here to prevent noise, copyright infringement and commercial solicitation.
I invite Mpants to admit he is "mistaken" regarding his assertion that the melodic minor is actually W H W W W W* H (* is an augmented second)
I don't think this is a trivial affair, and I don't ask him to admit the error for my sake.
If an exam paper question were "write out the formula for the melodic minor scale", a student would fail if they gave the formula that Mpants has written.
This error should have been admitted straight away. But my contention is that it was made on purpose. The reasons I know this to be true is that pointless arguements evolved from this one error. Later Mpants posted the correct formula from wiki, which again shows suspicion, because he would have known it doesn't correlate with his original contention.
Correct knowledge should never be sacrified in preferecne for sticking it to an opponent, regardless.
I feel Mpants owning up to this error would do him good in the long run, and I will accept his apology, and if he is interested, and with the moderators backing, he can continue a discussion with me.
The formula he originally wrote has always been, and will always be known as the Harmonic Minor formula. This will never have anything to do with Jazz Minor.
If Mpants is musically aware enough to know about the Jazz minor and other scales, he should have no problem admitting his error.
[ Administrative summary.
Case 09-00001. Original Complaint. TobyNotToby v. MjolnirPants.
Claim 1: The one true Melodic Minor scale is W H W W W W* H.
Claim 2: MjolnirPants denies claim one.
Claim 3: MjolnirPants has spread disinformation as in Claim 2 to the detriment of the current and future readers of this board who may be materially affected.
Claim 4: MjolnirPants has spread disinformation as in Claim 2 despite knowing better and as a calculated step.
Claim 5: Pointless discussion ensued.
Claim 6: MjolnirPants later cited Wikipedia as a source for Claim 1.
Claim 7: To the extent any correction of misinformation as in Claim 2 happened, that correction was untimely.
Claim 8: The Jazz Minor is not the Harmonic Minor.
Claim 9: The one true Melodic Minor as in Claim 1 is identical to the Jazz Minor.
Petition for Relief 1: Force MjolnirPants to admit mistake.
Argument: Because Claim 5 is asserted, it follows that Claim 4. Claim 6 and Claim 2 together imply that MjolnirPants does not consistently subscribe to Claim 1. ]
I don't think this is a trivial affair, and I don't ask him to admit the error for my sake.
If an exam paper question were "write out the formula for the melodic minor scale", a student would fail if they gave the formula that Mpants has written.
This error should have been admitted straight away. But my contention is that it was made on purpose. The reasons I know this to be true is that pointless arguements evolved from this one error. Later Mpants posted the correct formula from wiki, which again shows suspicion, because he would have known it doesn't correlate with his original contention.
Correct knowledge should never be sacrified in preferecne for sticking it to an opponent, regardless.
I feel Mpants owning up to this error would do him good in the long run, and I will accept his apology, and if he is interested, and with the moderators backing, he can continue a discussion with me.
The formula he originally wrote has always been, and will always be known as the Harmonic Minor formula. This will never have anything to do with Jazz Minor.
If Mpants is musically aware enough to know about the Jazz minor and other scales, he should have no problem admitting his error.
[ Administrative summary.
Case 09-00001. Original Complaint. TobyNotToby v. MjolnirPants.
Claim 1: The one true Melodic Minor scale is W H W W W W* H.
Claim 2: MjolnirPants denies claim one.
Claim 3: MjolnirPants has spread disinformation as in Claim 2 to the detriment of the current and future readers of this board who may be materially affected.
Claim 4: MjolnirPants has spread disinformation as in Claim 2 despite knowing better and as a calculated step.
Claim 5: Pointless discussion ensued.
Claim 6: MjolnirPants later cited Wikipedia as a source for Claim 1.
Claim 7: To the extent any correction of misinformation as in Claim 2 happened, that correction was untimely.
Claim 8: The Jazz Minor is not the Harmonic Minor.
Claim 9: The one true Melodic Minor as in Claim 1 is identical to the Jazz Minor.
Petition for Relief 1: Force MjolnirPants to admit mistake.
Argument: Because Claim 5 is asserted, it follows that Claim 4. Claim 6 and Claim 2 together imply that MjolnirPants does not consistently subscribe to Claim 1. ]
First off, I'd like to file a cross-complaint against Tobynottoby for consistent lying, abuse of other members and being a general disruption to this forum. I'd like him to be banned (again), and would especially love to see his IP address banned, so he cannot come back.
Next, I'll respond to his complaint.
First off, his claim is blatantly false to begin with.
Original Post in question
In that very post linked above, I explain to Liu the difference between his claimed formula for the melodic minor scale and the actual melodic minor -which ascends and descends differently, and thus needs two formulas to represent it. In his response, he then presumes to lecture me on the very subject I just finished explaining to him, making it obvious that he doesn't bother to read the content of my posts, but prefers to merely search through them for out-of-context quotes he can use to make straw-man arguments.
In fact, in the post linked below, Liu implicitly admits to quote mining my post in order to support his claims.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=414443
Next, I'll respond to his complaint.
First off, his claim is blatantly false to begin with.
Original Post in question
QUOTE
The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd).
The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)
Initially, I did in fact refer to it as the 'melodic minor', however the very next sentence goes on to refer to it as a 'true melodic minor' and a 'harmonic minor'. The reason for this discrepancy can be found through a perusal of the subsequent argument: I simply failed to type the word "true" the first time I referred to the scale. That is a mistake, however it is a typographical mistake, not a mistake made from a lack of knowledge of the relevant subject.The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)
In that very post linked above, I explain to Liu the difference between his claimed formula for the melodic minor scale and the actual melodic minor -which ascends and descends differently, and thus needs two formulas to represent it. In his response, he then presumes to lecture me on the very subject I just finished explaining to him, making it obvious that he doesn't bother to read the content of my posts, but prefers to merely search through them for out-of-context quotes he can use to make straw-man arguments.
In fact, in the post linked below, Liu implicitly admits to quote mining my post in order to support his claims.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=414443
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd). The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor) |
Initially, I did in fact refer to it as the 'melodic minor', however the very next sentence goes on to refer to it as a 'true melodic minor' and a 'harmonic minor'. The reason for this discrepancy can be found through a perusal of the subsequent argument: I simply failed to type the word "true" the first time I referred to the scale. That is a mistake, however it is a typographical mistake, not a mistake made from a lack of knowledge of the relevant subject.
In that very post linked above, I explain to Liu the difference between his claimed formula for the melodic minor scale and the actual melodic minor -which ascends and descends differently, and thus needs two formulas to represent it. In his response, he then presumes to lecture me on the very subject I just finished explaining to him, making it obvious that he doesn't bother to read the content of my posts, but prefers to merely search through them for out-of-context quotes he can use to make straw-man arguments.
In fact, in the post linked below, Liu implicitly admits to quote mining my post in order to support his claims.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=414443The only line I need from that post is where you said this:
.............The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd)............
In that very post linked above, I explain to Liu the difference between his claimed formula for the melodic minor scale and the actual melodic minor -which ascends and descends differently, and thus needs two formulas to represent it. In his response, he then presumes to lecture me on the very subject I just finished explaining to him, making it obvious that he doesn't bother to read the content of my posts, but prefers to merely search through them for out-of-context quotes he can use to make straw-man arguments.
In fact, in the post linked below, Liu implicitly admits to quote mining my post in order to support his claims.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=414443The only line I need from that post is where you said this:
.............The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd)............
He also denies that the jazz minor has anything to do with the discussion (despite the fact that the jazz minor ascends and descends using the same formula as the ascending melodic minor according to every single source available) in this post, which is blatant dishonesty and an attempt to obfuscate his own repeating error.
In the post linked below, gmilam (another musician) corroborates my explanation of the difference between the 'melodic minor' and the jazz minor.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=414542
In the post linked below, gmilam (another musician) corroborates my explanation of the difference between the 'melodic minor' and the jazz minor.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=414542Don't recall who posted what... but for the record the wikipedia definition of the melodic minor that MP posted somwehere around here has been my understanding of the scale for years. Raised 6 and 7 ascending/natural descending.
As the last peice of evidence to support my rebuttal, I submit the following from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_scale
http://www.saxlessons.com/jazzminor.htm
QUOTE
So it has nothing to do with "jazz Minor" which I'm familiar with.
In the post linked below, gmilam (another musician) corroborates my explanation of the difference between the 'melodic minor' and the jazz minor.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=414542
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So it has nothing to do with "jazz Minor" which I'm familiar with. |
In the post linked below, gmilam (another musician) corroborates my explanation of the difference between the 'melodic minor' and the jazz minor.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=414542Don't recall who posted what... but for the record the wikipedia definition of the melodic minor that MP posted somwehere around here has been my understanding of the scale for years. Raised 6 and 7 ascending/natural descending.
As the last peice of evidence to support my rebuttal, I submit the following from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_scale
QUOTE
Traditionally, music theorists have called these two options the ascending melodic (also known as heptatonia seconda) and descending melodic minor scales, the ascending being identical in its upper tetrachord to the major scale, and the descending being simply the natural minor
Which shows that the 'melodic minor' that Liu keeps harping about is actually comprised of two separate scales, the ascending and descending melodic minors, the former of which is synonymous with the jazz minor.http://www.saxlessons.com/jazzminor.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Traditionally, music theorists have called these two options the ascending melodic (also known as heptatonia seconda) and descending melodic minor scales, the ascending being identical in its upper tetrachord to the major scale, and the descending being simply the natural minor |
Which shows that the 'melodic minor' that Liu keeps harping about is actually comprised of two separate scales, the ascending and descending melodic minors, the former of which is synonymous with the jazz minor.
http://www.saxlessons.com/jazzminor.htmThe jazz minor scale is also known as the Melodic Minor Ascending scale.
Finally, in support of my cross-complaint, I submit the following list of posts:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416929
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416695
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416578
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416467
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416465
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416296
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416285
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=415997
And additionally, invite you to peruse his entire posting history in general, as this represents merely the first half of the first page of the posting history of his most recent handle. Prior handles include (but are not limited to):
mirrorman
boneidol
dibedy
squeeze
mickderry
All of whom have been banned (or suspended by yourself in one case) for the very behavior demonstrated in the above posts.
[ Administrative summary.
Case 09-00001. Cross-Complaint. TobyNotToby v. MjolnirPants.
Original Claim 1: The one true Melodic Minor scale is W H W W W W* H.
Defense Claim 1: Presents Post which indicates defendant called "true melodic minor" synonymous with "harmonic minor" and gave pattern as W H W W H W* H = 12 semitones. All reference sources require any scale to contain 12 semitones, which is to say one octave per octave. Original complaint would have required 13.
Claim 2: MjolnirPants denies claim one.
Defense Claim 2: Defense acknowledges that Defense denies assertion made in Original Claim 1, but asserts that it should be no crime to tell the truth.
Claim 3: MjolnirPants has spread disinformation as in Claim 2 to the detriment of the current and future readers of this board who may be materially affected.
Defense Claim 3: Repeats Defense Claim 2: "Have not."
Claim 4: MjolnirPants has spread disinformation as in Claim 2 despite knowing better and as a calculated step.
Defense Claim 4: Repeats Defense Claim 2: "Have not."
Claim 5: Pointless discussion ensued.
Defense Claim 5: While discussion may have been pointless indeed, that is for the most part attributed to Original Complainer bringing up the same incorrect points and bad faith in responding to posts as they are written. Evidence cited for contextomy.
Claim 6: MjolnirPants later cited Wikipedia as a source for Claim 1.
Defense Claim 6: Still does.
Claim 7: To the extent any correction of misinformation as in Claim 2 happened, that correction was untimely.
Defense Claim 7: Repeats Defense Claim 2: "Have not."
Claim 8: The Jazz Minor is not the Harmonic Minor.
Defense Claim 8: Indeed, the Jazz minor is the melodic minor (and not true melodic) scale(s).
Claim 9: The one true Melodic Minor as in Claim 1 is identical to the Jazz Minor.
Defense Claim 9: It can't be.
Petition for Relief 1: Force MjolnirPants to admit mistake.
Argument: Because Claim 5 is asserted, it follows that Claim 4. Claim 6 and Claim 2 together imply that MjolnirPants does not consistently subscribe to Claim 1. ]
Defense argument: From context, it was clear that I was treating "true melodic minor" as synonymous with "harmonic minor" which all parties agree what was represented by me in evidenced post. All of this is in Complainer's own head.
Cross-claim 10: TobyNotToby lies consistently
Cross-claim 11: TobyNotToby abuses other members
Cross-claim 12: TobyNotToby is a general disruption
Cross-claim 13: In support of 10, repeat defense claims 1, 2 and 9
Cross-claim 14: In support of 12, repeat defense claim 1 and 5.
Cross-claim 15: In support of 10, add assertion that TobyNotToby disregards Jazz minor and melodic minor scales being identical in various sources.
Cross-claim 16: In support of 11, cites post to buttershug, post to buttershug, post to occidental, post to TheDoc, post to TheDoc, post to RobDegraves, post to RobDegraves
Cross-claim 17: In support of 12, cites post to Meem
Cross-claim 18: In support of 12, cites user's long history of returning from bans, as evidenced at least by Complainer's own words in post to Meem and the cause of complain which arises with boneidol.
Petition for Cross-claim relief 1: Ban TobyNotToby
Petition for Cross-claim relief 2: Block TobyNotToby's IP address.
Argument for Cross-claim: claims 10-12 are well-supported and require removal.
]
http://www.saxlessons.com/jazzminor.htmThe jazz minor scale is also known as the Melodic Minor Ascending scale.
Finally, in support of my cross-complaint, I submit the following list of posts:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416929
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416695
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416578
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416467
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416465
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416296
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416285
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=415997
And additionally, invite you to peruse his entire posting history in general, as this represents merely the first half of the first page of the posting history of his most recent handle. Prior handles include (but are not limited to):
mirrorman
boneidol
dibedy
squeeze
mickderry
All of whom have been banned (or suspended by yourself in one case) for the very behavior demonstrated in the above posts.
[ Administrative summary.
Case 09-00001. Cross-Complaint. TobyNotToby v. MjolnirPants.
Original Claim 1: The one true Melodic Minor scale is W H W W W W* H.
Defense Claim 1: Presents Post which indicates defendant called "true melodic minor" synonymous with "harmonic minor" and gave pattern as W H W W H W* H = 12 semitones. All reference sources require any scale to contain 12 semitones, which is to say one octave per octave. Original complaint would have required 13.
Claim 2: MjolnirPants denies claim one.
Defense Claim 2: Defense acknowledges that Defense denies assertion made in Original Claim 1, but asserts that it should be no crime to tell the truth.
Claim 3: MjolnirPants has spread disinformation as in Claim 2 to the detriment of the current and future readers of this board who may be materially affected.
Defense Claim 3: Repeats Defense Claim 2: "Have not."
Claim 4: MjolnirPants has spread disinformation as in Claim 2 despite knowing better and as a calculated step.
Defense Claim 4: Repeats Defense Claim 2: "Have not."
Claim 5: Pointless discussion ensued.
Defense Claim 5: While discussion may have been pointless indeed, that is for the most part attributed to Original Complainer bringing up the same incorrect points and bad faith in responding to posts as they are written. Evidence cited for contextomy.
Claim 6: MjolnirPants later cited Wikipedia as a source for Claim 1.
Defense Claim 6: Still does.
Claim 7: To the extent any correction of misinformation as in Claim 2 happened, that correction was untimely.
Defense Claim 7: Repeats Defense Claim 2: "Have not."
Claim 8: The Jazz Minor is not the Harmonic Minor.
Defense Claim 8: Indeed, the Jazz minor is the melodic minor (and not true melodic) scale(s).
Claim 9: The one true Melodic Minor as in Claim 1 is identical to the Jazz Minor.
Defense Claim 9: It can't be.
Petition for Relief 1: Force MjolnirPants to admit mistake.
Argument: Because Claim 5 is asserted, it follows that Claim 4. Claim 6 and Claim 2 together imply that MjolnirPants does not consistently subscribe to Claim 1. ]
Defense argument: From context, it was clear that I was treating "true melodic minor" as synonymous with "harmonic minor" which all parties agree what was represented by me in evidenced post. All of this is in Complainer's own head.
Cross-claim 10: TobyNotToby lies consistently
Cross-claim 11: TobyNotToby abuses other members
Cross-claim 12: TobyNotToby is a general disruption
Cross-claim 13: In support of 10, repeat defense claims 1, 2 and 9
Cross-claim 14: In support of 12, repeat defense claim 1 and 5.
Cross-claim 15: In support of 10, add assertion that TobyNotToby disregards Jazz minor and melodic minor scales being identical in various sources.
Cross-claim 16: In support of 11, cites post to buttershug, post to buttershug, post to occidental, post to TheDoc, post to TheDoc, post to RobDegraves, post to RobDegraves
Cross-claim 17: In support of 12, cites post to Meem
Cross-claim 18: In support of 12, cites user's long history of returning from bans, as evidenced at least by Complainer's own words in post to Meem and the cause of complain which arises with boneidol.
Petition for Cross-claim relief 1: Ban TobyNotToby
Petition for Cross-claim relief 2: Block TobyNotToby's IP address.
Argument for Cross-claim: claims 10-12 are well-supported and require removal.
]
thanks,
bukh (defendant) vs rpenner (offender):
Physforum is a forum for discussion of mainly physical topics, it is meant as a layman scientific forum where everyone can participate and ask questions and give their comments and thoughts.
There are threads which specifically mention the outlines for discussion such like the "Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories" thread which specifically define the outlines like:
"Discuss here the most attractive and mysterious physics areas. Post here your ideas and thoughts, which might look weird at the moment. Who knows how it's going to be 100 years from now!
Forum Led by: rpenner".
I have been posting in this forum for about two years with no problems and mainly about a theory I refer to as the 3D pixel universe. My ideas have been consistently explained with no change in any major aspects - and they have always been brought forward as ideas, and never been said to represent any kind of accepted physical theory.
May Day was an event / happening arranged (if I am right) on the initiative of our moderator (rpenner) and was directed towards, as I understand it, how to:
"distinguishing science from crackpottery, pseudoscience, metaphysics and/or philosophy; what makes for a good PhysForum poster; or any scientific topic."
I am now accusing rpenner and his May Day arrangement to be a well defined attempt trying to introduce censorship concerning the content of a post.
No one can clearly tell what is science and what is not science in the gray area of speculations about the origin of the universe and the most fundamental mechanisms behind what we as humans perceive - and how we perceive and what a measurement fundamentally is about. And this is what among others are being dealt with when presenting ideas along the line of the 3D pixel universe.
I earned my 2 weeks suspension (non-argued by the way). The fact that this decision was said to be delegated to all members of the Forum does not blue stamp the May Day event - it only made it look democratic be being a majority decision about what is science and what is not. Majority rules the world - but majority is not necessarily the same as the truth - the truth cannot be established via voting.
After having spend my 2 weeks suspension I decided to post this:
"hej friends
First I decided to put this in the "May Day thread" - but changed my mind.
Moderation is fine as long as it concerns trivial issues like porn, spam, commercials, insults and tracking threads in an off topic way - (unfortunately there have been no sign of moderation concerning insults)
Moderation concerning so called quality of scientific content is much more delicate - (unfortunately there have been sign on such kind of moderation)
It is debatable whether science shall be defined so narrow that it is not allowed to discuss issues that cannot be measured in a physical sense and so narrow that it is not allowed to discus issues that is not part of mainstream.
Now that we are in the Speculation Part allow me to come up with this:
Physical per definition is limited to a certain scale - to a scale that can be interfered with by human physical senses, being in the range of about electron - or Planck - but still BIG when looked at with sub-quantum eyes
I think that we are in a process of paradigm shift towards a broader understanding of physical world, where "ether/medium" is becoming an important part, and to an understanding that information is perhaps one of the key tools to get a better idea of physical, and that it is not possible to construct a physical meaningful picture out from dimensionless points - and that infinity is a very delicate and often misused concept that perhaps cannot be incorporated into a physical context, just like singularity is a physical mis-fit.
The ancient Greek paradoxes of "Achilles and the tortoise" and "Zeno's arrow" are still puzzling and relevant.
That Achilles will not be able to overtake the tortoise is logic - because Achilles is never given the needed "amount" of time to overtake - Achilles is restricted in time - but more important is that Achilles will never REACH the tortoise - because time is quantic - physical is quantic - physical is DISCRETE. We have had these discussions before and I hope that we will have them also in the future.
The other paradox of Zeno's arrow is puzzling because it tells us that nothing can be defined with finite accuracy. Nothing can be said to be into existence with finite accuracy - everything is an approximation. So when Zeno ask where the arrow is between two points - the best answer is that the arrow is NOT into existence at ANY point - the arrow will always exist as an approximation. We have to respect the concept of "Most similar" and that an object has no similar counterpart.
One can also say that super symmetry and dynamic is impossible - (universe would then be an oscillating unchanged existence in-situ) everything is about approximations. Numbers are approximations - and calculus is (among others) about how to define approximations. This is not saying that math is useless - of course not - all applied math and physics works as good as needed - but from a philosophical point of view it is interesting to deal with the concepts of accuracy and infinity and "most similar". 0.9--- is not the same as 1.
And from a philosophical point of view it is interesting to ponder about the ether - to ponder about what a particle is - and what or who is defining the particles - and who is perceiving - who/what is the observer - because on the bottom line it is about how part of universe perceive the surrounding universe - it is about how information observe information.
How can a part of information in a universe of complete entanglement - how can a part isolate itself from the surrounding, and make observations. And making an observation involve a kind of interference that change the next "step" - perhaps the mere act of observation is the symmetry breaking impetus. And in this context it is important to understand "observer" as broad as "any complexion" - human is just one out of infinitely many complexions in universe - is just one out of any and all of the observers - but from a human point of view of course a very important observer
And it is interesting to ponder about the fundamental nature of energy - what is energy apart from something that can be measured and expressed in many physical ways - what is the underlying or better - what is the most fundamental form of energy - from where comes this ability to exert changes - why is it that spacetime cannot sit still.
I have suggested that physical world can be conceptualized out from "object of sameness" as our tool - serving as metric and as the fundamental defining - picturing and communicating tool, and that all physical can be seen as how objects of sameness arrange and re-arrange in space i flash-expressions - and how "universe only exists once". Object of sameness (irrespective of scale - size) contain all the needed information to outfold physical universe, the outfolding is via SHAPE as the organizing factor, everything can be seen as being outfolded via its fundamental shape - as the seeding information. Universe is fractal and holographic, and there is only one universe at a time. And I have suggested that it is not possible to define anything out from dimensionless - information less - shapeless points, and that it takes a 3D to define a 0D - 1D and 2D.
I have suggested that spacetime best can be understood as a nearly solid - with sufficient elasticity to secure delay - inertia - via its discreteness - (Navier Stokes existence and smoothness problem) and at the same time secure absolute accuracy in projections from one scale to another. So motion is an illusion, it is much better to see everything as "RE-ARRANGEMENTS". Our physical world is the scale equivalent to human physical senses - equivalent to the scale of about electron/photon - or slightly smaller - we will never be able to "touch" the true sub-quantum except by our mental power. Our physical world can be seen as the playing of a highly ordered 3D grid of pixels (and pixels are made of pixels and so on - so we are dealing with force-fields). Pixels do not "exist" - just like atoms do not exist.
One of natures well secured secrets is how nature on one hand can be dynamic and on the other hand be extremely accurate - and one way of looking at it is to see object of sameness as something that can be thought as small as needed - it is a simple act of scaling - and everything can be scaled into a point of disappearance, it is just a question about where the observer is placed relative to the observed. At the same time I feel it is necessary to introduce the concept of free void - that there must be something "in between" to separate one object of sameness from another. This is about the duality: that matter cannot exist without the parallel existence of free void. The relative balance between matter and free void is non-interesting.
Because spacetime can be thought scale wise - can be thought how objects of sameness arrange and configure in ever increasingly bigger and bigger stable repetitive patterns - it is possible to freely translate free void into relative vacuum, and I have suggested how such relative vacuum fluctuates over the Universe - and that relative vacuum is the "energy source". One can also say that universe strive for the most optimal "FIT" of objects of sameness - that universe in each and every scale constantly strive after the most optimal fit between objects of sameness - so as to get the most even distribution of free void all over universe. So as to get the most even or the smallest gradient of relative vacuum - so as to get the smallest gradient exerting change - and this is how entropy can be seen.
All main streamers of this Forum will probably get nauseated by reading the above - and I am confident that only a very few main streamers if any will get to these last lines - but I shall welcome any constructive comment - and I will try to explain to the best of my limited capacity, and I promise there will be no math involved."
Now one of the members of this forum (AlexG) reacted by asking:
"If it can't be measured in a physical sense, it isn't physics. If what you speculate on has no physical ramifications, it isn't science."
and I returned with the obvious question asking:
"What is meant by "physical ramifications - Are you indicating that the only valid science is Physics ?"
NINE minutes later I received another one week suspension executed by our moderator rpenner.
with the following justification:
[Moderator: Suspended 7 days for specious comments.]
Wiktionary: Specious -Seemingly well-reasoned or factual, but actually fallacious or insincere.
Then my question would be - How can an idea be fallacious or insincere ? - At the least one can expect that a moderator come up with an argued reason for suspending - at least come up with a kind of scientific arguing - that the idea is factually incorrect because of ---
Is it this type of censorship that the Forum ask for - is it this type of censorship that makes the Forum a better place for the free exchange of ideas -
In the May day thread You (rpenner) said:
"Freedom of speech (which you do not have on a forum you don't own) is never freedom from criticism. And scientific ideas are never free of the tyranny of the universe."
Yes - freedom of speech is always under the responsibility of the speaker - and always with the risk / benefit of getting criticism - but it should never be under the risk of being suspended and punished with warnings, as long as we are dealing with the CONTENT. I shall more than welcome a discussion about this tyranny of universe - and hope that this Forum again shall be a free and open minded place.
Censorship with regard to scientific content is and will always be a mission impossible.
I would like You rpenner to give up this kind of censorship, or grant this Forum one thread free from your censorship concerning content.
bukh (defendant) vs rpenner (offender):
Physforum is a forum for discussion of mainly physical topics, it is meant as a layman scientific forum where everyone can participate and ask questions and give their comments and thoughts.
There are threads which specifically mention the outlines for discussion such like the "Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories" thread which specifically define the outlines like:
"Discuss here the most attractive and mysterious physics areas. Post here your ideas and thoughts, which might look weird at the moment. Who knows how it's going to be 100 years from now!
Forum Led by: rpenner".
I have been posting in this forum for about two years with no problems and mainly about a theory I refer to as the 3D pixel universe. My ideas have been consistently explained with no change in any major aspects - and they have always been brought forward as ideas, and never been said to represent any kind of accepted physical theory.
May Day was an event / happening arranged (if I am right) on the initiative of our moderator (rpenner) and was directed towards, as I understand it, how to:
"distinguishing science from crackpottery, pseudoscience, metaphysics and/or philosophy; what makes for a good PhysForum poster; or any scientific topic."
I am now accusing rpenner and his May Day arrangement to be a well defined attempt trying to introduce censorship concerning the content of a post.
No one can clearly tell what is science and what is not science in the gray area of speculations about the origin of the universe and the most fundamental mechanisms behind what we as humans perceive - and how we perceive and what a measurement fundamentally is about. And this is what among others are being dealt with when presenting ideas along the line of the 3D pixel universe.
I earned my 2 weeks suspension (non-argued by the way). The fact that this decision was said to be delegated to all members of the Forum does not blue stamp the May Day event - it only made it look democratic be being a majority decision about what is science and what is not. Majority rules the world - but majority is not necessarily the same as the truth - the truth cannot be established via voting.
After having spend my 2 weeks suspension I decided to post this:
"hej friends
First I decided to put this in the "May Day thread" - but changed my mind.
Moderation is fine as long as it concerns trivial issues like porn, spam, commercials, insults and tracking threads in an off topic way - (unfortunately there have been no sign of moderation concerning insults)
Moderation concerning so called quality of scientific content is much more delicate - (unfortunately there have been sign on such kind of moderation)
It is debatable whether science shall be defined so narrow that it is not allowed to discuss issues that cannot be measured in a physical sense and so narrow that it is not allowed to discus issues that is not part of mainstream.
Now that we are in the Speculation Part allow me to come up with this:
Physical per definition is limited to a certain scale - to a scale that can be interfered with by human physical senses, being in the range of about electron - or Planck - but still BIG when looked at with sub-quantum eyes
I think that we are in a process of paradigm shift towards a broader understanding of physical world, where "ether/medium" is becoming an important part, and to an understanding that information is perhaps one of the key tools to get a better idea of physical, and that it is not possible to construct a physical meaningful picture out from dimensionless points - and that infinity is a very delicate and often misused concept that perhaps cannot be incorporated into a physical context, just like singularity is a physical mis-fit.
The ancient Greek paradoxes of "Achilles and the tortoise" and "Zeno's arrow" are still puzzling and relevant.
That Achilles will not be able to overtake the tortoise is logic - because Achilles is never given the needed "amount" of time to overtake - Achilles is restricted in time - but more important is that Achilles will never REACH the tortoise - because time is quantic - physical is quantic - physical is DISCRETE. We have had these discussions before and I hope that we will have them also in the future.
The other paradox of Zeno's arrow is puzzling because it tells us that nothing can be defined with finite accuracy. Nothing can be said to be into existence with finite accuracy - everything is an approximation. So when Zeno ask where the arrow is between two points - the best answer is that the arrow is NOT into existence at ANY point - the arrow will always exist as an approximation. We have to respect the concept of "Most similar" and that an object has no similar counterpart.
One can also say that super symmetry and dynamic is impossible - (universe would then be an oscillating unchanged existence in-situ) everything is about approximations. Numbers are approximations - and calculus is (among others) about how to define approximations. This is not saying that math is useless - of course not - all applied math and physics works as good as needed - but from a philosophical point of view it is interesting to deal with the concepts of accuracy and infinity and "most similar". 0.9--- is not the same as 1.
And from a philosophical point of view it is interesting to ponder about the ether - to ponder about what a particle is - and what or who is defining the particles - and who is perceiving - who/what is the observer - because on the bottom line it is about how part of universe perceive the surrounding universe - it is about how information observe information.
How can a part of information in a universe of complete entanglement - how can a part isolate itself from the surrounding, and make observations. And making an observation involve a kind of interference that change the next "step" - perhaps the mere act of observation is the symmetry breaking impetus. And in this context it is important to understand "observer" as broad as "any complexion" - human is just one out of infinitely many complexions in universe - is just one out of any and all of the observers - but from a human point of view of course a very important observer
And it is interesting to ponder about the fundamental nature of energy - what is energy apart from something that can be measured and expressed in many physical ways - what is the underlying or better - what is the most fundamental form of energy - from where comes this ability to exert changes - why is it that spacetime cannot sit still.
I have suggested that physical world can be conceptualized out from "object of sameness" as our tool - serving as metric and as the fundamental defining - picturing and communicating tool, and that all physical can be seen as how objects of sameness arrange and re-arrange in space i flash-expressions - and how "universe only exists once". Object of sameness (irrespective of scale - size) contain all the needed information to outfold physical universe, the outfolding is via SHAPE as the organizing factor, everything can be seen as being outfolded via its fundamental shape - as the seeding information. Universe is fractal and holographic, and there is only one universe at a time. And I have suggested that it is not possible to define anything out from dimensionless - information less - shapeless points, and that it takes a 3D to define a 0D - 1D and 2D.
I have suggested that spacetime best can be understood as a nearly solid - with sufficient elasticity to secure delay - inertia - via its discreteness - (Navier Stokes existence and smoothness problem) and at the same time secure absolute accuracy in projections from one scale to another. So motion is an illusion, it is much better to see everything as "RE-ARRANGEMENTS". Our physical world is the scale equivalent to human physical senses - equivalent to the scale of about electron/photon - or slightly smaller - we will never be able to "touch" the true sub-quantum except by our mental power. Our physical world can be seen as the playing of a highly ordered 3D grid of pixels (and pixels are made of pixels and so on - so we are dealing with force-fields). Pixels do not "exist" - just like atoms do not exist.
One of natures well secured secrets is how nature on one hand can be dynamic and on the other hand be extremely accurate - and one way of looking at it is to see object of sameness as something that can be thought as small as needed - it is a simple act of scaling - and everything can be scaled into a point of disappearance, it is just a question about where the observer is placed relative to the observed. At the same time I feel it is necessary to introduce the concept of free void - that there must be something "in between" to separate one object of sameness from another. This is about the duality: that matter cannot exist without the parallel existence of free void. The relative balance between matter and free void is non-interesting.
Because spacetime can be thought scale wise - can be thought how objects of sameness arrange and configure in ever increasingly bigger and bigger stable repetitive patterns - it is possible to freely translate free void into relative vacuum, and I have suggested how such relative vacuum fluctuates over the Universe - and that relative vacuum is the "energy source". One can also say that universe strive for the most optimal "FIT" of objects of sameness - that universe in each and every scale constantly strive after the most optimal fit between objects of sameness - so as to get the most even distribution of free void all over universe. So as to get the most even or the smallest gradient of relative vacuum - so as to get the smallest gradient exerting change - and this is how entropy can be seen.
All main streamers of this Forum will probably get nauseated by reading the above - and I am confident that only a very few main streamers if any will get to these last lines - but I shall welcome any constructive comment - and I will try to explain to the best of my limited capacity, and I promise there will be no math involved."
Now one of the members of this forum (AlexG) reacted by asking:
"If it can't be measured in a physical sense, it isn't physics. If what you speculate on has no physical ramifications, it isn't science."
and I returned with the obvious question asking:
"What is meant by "physical ramifications - Are you indicating that the only valid science is Physics ?"
NINE minutes later I received another one week suspension executed by our moderator rpenner.
with the following justification:
[Moderator: Suspended 7 days for specious comments.]
Wiktionary: Specious -Seemingly well-reasoned or factual, but actually fallacious or insincere.
Then my question would be - How can an idea be fallacious or insincere ? - At the least one can expect that a moderator come up with an argued reason for suspending - at least come up with a kind of scientific arguing - that the idea is factually incorrect because of ---
Is it this type of censorship that the Forum ask for - is it this type of censorship that makes the Forum a better place for the free exchange of ideas -
In the May day thread You (rpenner) said:
"Freedom of speech (which you do not have on a forum you don't own) is never freedom from criticism. And scientific ideas are never free of the tyranny of the universe."
Yes - freedom of speech is always under the responsibility of the speaker - and always with the risk / benefit of getting criticism - but it should never be under the risk of being suspended and punished with warnings, as long as we are dealing with the CONTENT. I shall more than welcome a discussion about this tyranny of universe - and hope that this Forum again shall be a free and open minded place.
Censorship with regard to scientific content is and will always be a mission impossible.
I would like You rpenner to give up this kind of censorship, or grant this Forum one thread free from your censorship concerning content.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 15 2009, 08:25 PM)
First off, I'd like to file a cross-complaint against Tobynottoby for consistent lying, abuse of other members and being a general disruption to this forum. I'd like him to be banned (again), and would especially love to see his IP address banned, so he cannot come back.
Next, I'll respond to his complaint.
First off, his claim is blatantly false to begin with.
Original Post in question Initially, I did in fact refer to it as the 'melodic minor', however the very next sentence goes on to refer to it as a 'true melodic minor' and a 'harmonic minor'. The reason for this discrepancy can be found through a perusal of the subsequent argument: I simply failed to type the word "true" the first time I referred to the scale. That is a mistake, however it is a typographical mistake, not a mistake made from a lack of knowledge of the relevant subject.
In that very post linked above, I explain to Liu the difference between his claimed formula for the melodic minor scale and the actual melodic minor -which ascends and descends differently, and thus needs two formulas to represent it. In his response, he then presumes to lecture me on the very subject I just finished explaining to him, making it obvious that he doesn't bother to read the content of my posts, but prefers to merely search through them for out-of-context quotes he can use to make straw-man arguments.
In fact, in the post linked below, Liu implicitly admits to quote mining my post in order to support his claims.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=414443He also denies that the jazz minor has anything to do with the discussion (despite the fact that the jazz minor ascends and descends using the same formula as the ascending melodic minor according to every single source available) in this post, which is blatant dishonesty and an attempt to obfuscate his own repeating error.
In the post linked below, gmilam (another musician) corroborates my explanation of the difference between the 'melodic minor' and the jazz minor.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=414542
As the last peice of evidence to support my rebuttal, I submit the following from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_scale
Which shows that the 'melodic minor' that Liu keeps harping about is actually comprised of two separate scales, the ascending and descending melodic minors, the former of which is synonymous with the jazz minor.
http://www.saxlessons.com/jazzminor.htm
Finally, in support of my cross-complaint, I submit the following list of posts:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416929
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416695
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416578
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416467
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416465
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416296
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416285
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=415997
And additionally, invite you to peruse his entire posting history in general, as this represents merely the first half of the first page of the posting history of his most recent handle. Prior handles include (but are not limited to):
mirrorman
boneidol
dibedy
squeeze
mickderry
All of whom have been banned (or suspended by yourself in one case) for the very behavior demonstrated in the above posts.
Mpants's reply contains various fundamental untruths. The true Melodic minor has nothing to do with the Harmonic minor, and he is buildign a strawman here. These two scales, melodic and harmonic minor, were evolved for completely different things in mind.
This statement is completely false all round:
The first sentence is completely wrong. The formula he gives is for the harmonic minor.
An ascending melodic minor scale formula is the only true formula for that named scale, and Mpants is talking comlete rubbish here. The melodic minor ascends with the 6th and 7th note raised (as explained correctly by Gmilam). In classical music the melodic minor was used for ascending melodies (hence melodic minor name), but reverted to the normal natural minor scale on the descent. For example, the notes
A C D E F# G# A, G F E D C A
A composer here would use the melodic minor to ascend a melody, but revert to natural minor on the way down.
This has NOTHING to do with the Harmonic minor. Mpants must be terribly confused if he thinks otherwise. He gives the formula for harmonic minor, and then tries to qualify that with another untruth about "you only specified it ascending". Check with any music theorist and I am 100% confident that I will be seen to be correct.
The "get out clause" for Mpants is the modern use of the melodic minor, made popular by jazz musicians. They play the same scale both ascending and descending, not reverting back to natural minor.
Here is a correct list:
Melodic minor - W H W W W W H, for example, A B C D E F# G# A
Jazz Minor - W H W W W W H, for example, A B C D E F# G# A
Same scale see?
Natural Minor - W H W W H W W, for example, A B C D E F G A
Why would I need to bring in the jazz minor? what has this got to do with the harmonic minor?
Harmonic Minor - W H W W W W* H, for example, A B C D E F G# A
Mpants's logic is fundamentally flawed, and I ask that he own up to his mistake.
He is trying to twist it by saying I am not giving the notes for a true melodic minor, which is a false accusation. It is utter rubbish, as you see here by the only formula that the harmonic minor is known by. And , funnily enough, all this can be confirmed on the wiki page he posted.
Again, Mpants has refused the chance to admit his deceit. All he has done in his post there is skirt over his glaring error. I personally can't believe he is being allowed to get away with it. And that is not even mentioning the people that are backing this liar up here.
The question regarding physforum's integrity is being asked.
I reiterate, melodic minor is NEVER harmonic minor, nor is harmonic minor EVER associated with Jazz minor. So his defence regarding that is a complete strawman.
Over to you moderator. Your choice may be between someone you dislike and accurate knowledge. The tone you set will no doubt set a precedent for the health of discussions at physforum in the future.
[ Administrative summary.
Case 09-00001. Reply to Cross-Complaint and Follow-up to Original Complaint. TobyNotToby v. MjolnirPants.
Original Claim 1: The one true Melodic Minor scale is W H W W W W* H.
Defense Claim 1: Presents Post which indicates defendant called "true melodic minor" synonymous with "harmonic minor" and gave pattern as W H W W H W* H = 12 semitones. All reference sources require any scale to contain 12 semitones, which is to say one octave per octave. Original complaint would have required 13.
Follow-up 1: Even if MjolnirPants intended to define "true melodic minor" as synonymous as "harmonic minor" in the original post (Aug 27, 2008), he does not get to do that. The court must consult an expert.
--
Claim 2: MjolnirPants denies claim one.
Defense Claim 2: Defense acknowledges that Defense denies assertion made in Original Claim 1, but asserts that it should be no crime to tell the truth.
--
Claim 3: MjolnirPants has spread disinformation as in Claim 2 to the detriment of the current and future readers of this board who may be materially affected.
Defense Claim 3: Repeats Defense Claim 2: "Have not."
--
Claim 4: MjolnirPants has spread disinformation as in Claim 2 despite knowing better and as a calculated step.
Defense Claim 4: Repeats Defense Claim 2: "Have not."
--
Claim 5: Pointless discussion ensued.
Defense Claim 5: While discussion may have been pointless indeed, that is for the most part attributed to Original Complainer bringing up the same incorrect points and bad faith in responding to posts as they are written. Evidence cited for contextomy.
--
Claim 6: MjolnirPants later cited Wikipedia as a source for Claim 1.
Defense Claim 6: Still does.
--
Claim 7: To the extent any correction of misinformation as in Claim 2 happened, that correction was untimely.
Defense Claim 7: Repeats Defense Claim 2: "Have not."
--
Claim 8: The Jazz Minor is not the Harmonic Minor.
Defense Claim 8: Indeed, the Jazz minor is the melodic minor (and not true melodic) scale(s).
--
Claim 9: The one true Melodic Minor as in Claim 1 is identical to the Jazz Minor.
Defense Claim 9: It can't be.
Follow-up 9: Concedes point. Meant "ascending melodic minor" not "true melodic minor"
--
Petition for Relief 1: Force MjolnirPants to admit mistake.
Argument: Because Claim 5 is asserted, it follows that Claim 4. Claim 6 and Claim 2 together imply that MjolnirPants does not consistently subscribe to Claim 1. ]
Defense argument: From context, it was clear that the actual post was treating "true melodic minor" as synonymous with "harmonic minor" which all parties agree what was represented by me in evidenced post. All of this is in Complainer's own head.
Original Followup: Agrees with intent, disagrees with efficacy.
Cross-claim 10: TobyNotToby lies consistently
--
Cross-claim 11: TobyNotToby abuses other members
--
Cross-claim 12: TobyNotToby is a general disruption
--
Cross-claim 13: In support of 10, repeat defense claims 1, 2 and 9
Defense to Cross-claim 13: Repeat followups to 1 and 9.
Cross-claim 14: In support of 12, repeat defense claim 1 and 5.
Defense to Cross-claim 14: Repeat followups to 1.
Cross-claim 15: In support of 10, add assertion that TobyNotToby disregards Jazz minor and melodic minor scales being identical in various sources.
--
Cross-claim 16: In support of 11, cites post to buttershug, post to buttershug, post to occidental, post to TheDoc, post to TheDoc, post to RobDegraves, post to RobDegraves
--
Cross-claim 17: In support of 12, cites post to Meem
--
Cross-claim 18: In support of 12, cites user's long history of returning from bans, as evidenced at least by Complainer's own words in post to Meem and the cause of complain which arises with boneidol.
--
Petition for Cross-claim relief 1: Ban TobyNotToby
Petition for Cross-claim relief 2: Block TobyNotToby's IP address.
Argument for Cross-claim: claims 10-12 are well-supported and require removal.
Defense argument for Cross-claim: None offered.
]
Next, I'll respond to his complaint.
First off, his claim is blatantly false to begin with.
Original Post in question Initially, I did in fact refer to it as the 'melodic minor', however the very next sentence goes on to refer to it as a 'true melodic minor' and a 'harmonic minor'. The reason for this discrepancy can be found through a perusal of the subsequent argument: I simply failed to type the word "true" the first time I referred to the scale. That is a mistake, however it is a typographical mistake, not a mistake made from a lack of knowledge of the relevant subject.
In that very post linked above, I explain to Liu the difference between his claimed formula for the melodic minor scale and the actual melodic minor -which ascends and descends differently, and thus needs two formulas to represent it. In his response, he then presumes to lecture me on the very subject I just finished explaining to him, making it obvious that he doesn't bother to read the content of my posts, but prefers to merely search through them for out-of-context quotes he can use to make straw-man arguments.
In fact, in the post linked below, Liu implicitly admits to quote mining my post in order to support his claims.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=414443He also denies that the jazz minor has anything to do with the discussion (despite the fact that the jazz minor ascends and descends using the same formula as the ascending melodic minor according to every single source available) in this post, which is blatant dishonesty and an attempt to obfuscate his own repeating error.
In the post linked below, gmilam (another musician) corroborates my explanation of the difference between the 'melodic minor' and the jazz minor.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=414542
As the last peice of evidence to support my rebuttal, I submit the following from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_scale
Which shows that the 'melodic minor' that Liu keeps harping about is actually comprised of two separate scales, the ascending and descending melodic minors, the former of which is synonymous with the jazz minor.
http://www.saxlessons.com/jazzminor.htm
Finally, in support of my cross-complaint, I submit the following list of posts:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416929
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416695
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416578
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416467
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416465
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416296
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=416285
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=415997
And additionally, invite you to peruse his entire posting history in general, as this represents merely the first half of the first page of the posting history of his most recent handle. Prior handles include (but are not limited to):
mirrorman
boneidol
dibedy
squeeze
mickderry
All of whom have been banned (or suspended by yourself in one case) for the very behavior demonstrated in the above posts.
Mpants's reply contains various fundamental untruths. The true Melodic minor has nothing to do with the Harmonic minor, and he is buildign a strawman here. These two scales, melodic and harmonic minor, were evolved for completely different things in mind.
This statement is completely false all round:
QUOTE
The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd).
The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)
The notes you give are for an ascending melodic minor in A, not a true melodic minor. (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)
The first sentence is completely wrong. The formula he gives is for the harmonic minor.
An ascending melodic minor scale formula is the only true formula for that named scale, and Mpants is talking comlete rubbish here. The melodic minor ascends with the 6th and 7th note raised (as explained correctly by Gmilam). In classical music the melodic minor was used for ascending melodies (hence melodic minor name), but reverted to the normal natural minor scale on the descent. For example, the notes
A C D E F# G# A, G F E D C A
A composer here would use the melodic minor to ascend a melody, but revert to natural minor on the way down.
This has NOTHING to do with the Harmonic minor. Mpants must be terribly confused if he thinks otherwise. He gives the formula for harmonic minor, and then tries to qualify that with another untruth about "you only specified it ascending". Check with any music theorist and I am 100% confident that I will be seen to be correct.
The "get out clause" for Mpants is the modern use of the melodic minor, made popular by jazz musicians. They play the same scale both ascending and descending, not reverting back to natural minor.
Here is a correct list:
Melodic minor - W H W W W W H, for example, A B C D E F# G# A
Jazz Minor - W H W W W W H, for example, A B C D E F# G# A
Same scale see?
Natural Minor - W H W W H W W, for example, A B C D E F G A
Why would I need to bring in the jazz minor? what has this got to do with the harmonic minor?
Harmonic Minor - W H W W W W* H, for example, A B C D E F G# A
Mpants's logic is fundamentally flawed, and I ask that he own up to his mistake.
He is trying to twist it by saying I am not giving the notes for a true melodic minor, which is a false accusation. It is utter rubbish, as you see here by the only formula that the harmonic minor is known by. And , funnily enough, all this can be confirmed on the wiki page he posted.
Again, Mpants has refused the chance to admit his deceit. All he has done in his post there is skirt over his glaring error. I personally can't believe he is being allowed to get away with it. And that is not even mentioning the people that are backing this liar up here.
The question regarding physforum's integrity is being asked.
I reiterate, melodic minor is NEVER harmonic minor, nor is harmonic minor EVER associated with Jazz minor. So his defence regarding that is a complete strawman.
Over to you moderator. Your choice may be between someone you dislike and accurate knowledge. The tone you set will no doubt set a precedent for the health of discussions at physforum in the future.
[ Administrative summary.
Case 09-00001. Reply to Cross-Complaint and Follow-up to Original Complaint. TobyNotToby v. MjolnirPants.
Original Claim 1: The one true Melodic Minor scale is W H W W W W* H.
Defense Claim 1: Presents Post which indicates defendant called "true melodic minor" synonymous with "harmonic minor" and gave pattern as W H W W H W* H = 12 semitones. All reference sources require any scale to contain 12 semitones, which is to say one octave per octave. Original complaint would have required 13.
Follow-up 1: Even if MjolnirPants intended to define "true melodic minor" as synonymous as "harmonic minor" in the original post (Aug 27, 2008), he does not get to do that. The court must consult an expert.
--
Claim 2: MjolnirPants denies claim one.
Defense Claim 2: Defense acknowledges that Defense denies assertion made in Original Claim 1, but asserts that it should be no crime to tell the truth.
--
Claim 3: MjolnirPants has spread disinformation as in Claim 2 to the detriment of the current and future readers of this board who may be materially affected.
Defense Claim 3: Repeats Defense Claim 2: "Have not."
--
Claim 4: MjolnirPants has spread disinformation as in Claim 2 despite knowing better and as a calculated step.
Defense Claim 4: Repeats Defense Claim 2: "Have not."
--
Claim 5: Pointless discussion ensued.
Defense Claim 5: While discussion may have been pointless indeed, that is for the most part attributed to Original Complainer bringing up the same incorrect points and bad faith in responding to posts as they are written. Evidence cited for contextomy.
--
Claim 6: MjolnirPants later cited Wikipedia as a source for Claim 1.
Defense Claim 6: Still does.
--
Claim 7: To the extent any correction of misinformation as in Claim 2 happened, that correction was untimely.
Defense Claim 7: Repeats Defense Claim 2: "Have not."
--
Claim 8: The Jazz Minor is not the Harmonic Minor.
Defense Claim 8: Indeed, the Jazz minor is the melodic minor (and not true melodic) scale(s).
--
Claim 9: The one true Melodic Minor as in Claim 1 is identical to the Jazz Minor.
Defense Claim 9: It can't be.
Follow-up 9: Concedes point. Meant "ascending melodic minor" not "true melodic minor"
--
Petition for Relief 1: Force MjolnirPants to admit mistake.
Argument: Because Claim 5 is asserted, it follows that Claim 4. Claim 6 and Claim 2 together imply that MjolnirPants does not consistently subscribe to Claim 1. ]
Defense argument: From context, it was clear that the actual post was treating "true melodic minor" as synonymous with "harmonic minor" which all parties agree what was represented by me in evidenced post. All of this is in Complainer's own head.
Original Followup: Agrees with intent, disagrees with efficacy.
Cross-claim 10: TobyNotToby lies consistently
--
Cross-claim 11: TobyNotToby abuses other members
--
Cross-claim 12: TobyNotToby is a general disruption
--
Cross-claim 13: In support of 10, repeat defense claims 1, 2 and 9
Defense to Cross-claim 13: Repeat followups to 1 and 9.
Cross-claim 14: In support of 12, repeat defense claim 1 and 5.
Defense to Cross-claim 14: Repeat followups to 1.
Cross-claim 15: In support of 10, add assertion that TobyNotToby disregards Jazz minor and melodic minor scales being identical in various sources.
--
Cross-claim 16: In support of 11, cites post to buttershug, post to buttershug, post to occidental, post to TheDoc, post to TheDoc, post to RobDegraves, post to RobDegraves
--
Cross-claim 17: In support of 12, cites post to Meem
--
Cross-claim 18: In support of 12, cites user's long history of returning from bans, as evidenced at least by Complainer's own words in post to Meem and the cause of complain which arises with boneidol.
--
Petition for Cross-claim relief 1: Ban TobyNotToby
Petition for Cross-claim relief 2: Block TobyNotToby's IP address.
Argument for Cross-claim: claims 10-12 are well-supported and require removal.
Defense argument for Cross-claim: None offered.
]
I have no direct dispute with one person. I will keep it general and vague. Rpenner, I would like to make it very clear, I have no dispute with you. However, I think there is more work on you hands than you can handle, or this thread would not exist. If you are the only moderator by circumstance, you have my condolences. If it is meant to be this way, I would like to point out this very thread as to the indication of the severity of error, by whom ever has made it this way.
The people who do it know who they are. Self gratification, or "real-trolling" for argument, insult, brandishing, and not debate is a detriment to this site. We are products of our environment, but we also have the ability to effect our environment.
I'm still trying to figure out why, there only seems to be one moderator on this forum. I believe that is why all the wolves have been baying like they do. If a "scientific" fallacy is committed, there is a fast a furious resolution. Rather than the moderator moderating, a show of howls from the wolves direct the action. When moral correctness comes into question, who cares, fresh meat for the wolves. What a bloody mess.
People, without proper medical training who make a psychological prognosis often suffer from the opposite condition of their unqualified rulings. If I were to say, one has a superiority complex, it would mean that I in-fact suffer from an inferiority complex.
I would also like to include, from a post specifically about dialogue on the topic of science and religion the mockery of the thread, by one person in specific RobDegraves,
I know the meaning of irony btw.
It's in the title of this thread.
Someone could call that self righteous monologue, and not be afar off from the truth.
The people who do it know who they are. Self gratification, or "real-trolling" for argument, insult, brandishing, and not debate is a detriment to this site. We are products of our environment, but we also have the ability to effect our environment.
I'm still trying to figure out why, there only seems to be one moderator on this forum. I believe that is why all the wolves have been baying like they do. If a "scientific" fallacy is committed, there is a fast a furious resolution. Rather than the moderator moderating, a show of howls from the wolves direct the action. When moral correctness comes into question, who cares, fresh meat for the wolves. What a bloody mess.
People, without proper medical training who make a psychological prognosis often suffer from the opposite condition of their unqualified rulings. If I were to say, one has a superiority complex, it would mean that I in-fact suffer from an inferiority complex.
I would also like to include, from a post specifically about dialogue on the topic of science and religion the mockery of the thread, by one person in specific RobDegraves,
QUOTE
I know the meaning of irony btw.
It's in the title of this thread.
Someone could call that self righteous monologue, and not be afar off from the truth.
Well... I was not going to enter into this but I guess I must.
I will keep my complaint brief and to the point. Fortunately all the evidence I have for my point is contained in the complaint above.
I am lodging a counter complaint against Meem.
Evidence.
His own words...
I would also like to include, from a post specifically about dialogue on the topic of science and religion the mockery of the thread, by one person in specific RobDegraves
Meem has constantly so far expressed one set of ideals while demonstrating another completely opposite set.
I also direct you to any of his posts that have been so far nearly content free. Please feel free to judge against the contents of my own posts so far.
I will keep my complaint brief and to the point. Fortunately all the evidence I have for my point is contained in the complaint above.
I am lodging a counter complaint against Meem.
Evidence.
His own words...
QUOTE
I have no direct dispute with one person. I will keep it general and vague.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have no direct dispute with one person. I will keep it general and vague. |
I would also like to include, from a post specifically about dialogue on the topic of science and religion the mockery of the thread, by one person in specific RobDegraves
Meem has constantly so far expressed one set of ideals while demonstrating another completely opposite set.
I also direct you to any of his posts that have been so far nearly content free. Please feel free to judge against the contents of my own posts so far.
Robdegraves fails to understand that I used him as an example for my case.
He see's no merit what so ever to "spirituality/religion" therefore, how would he be capable of seeing any merit in my posts without bias. He is leaping before looking, and in fact doesn't even see the need to look, nor understand. I will simply state what I did from the begining of this thread.
He doesn't see it to be insulting at all to mock the whole of people who believe in any form or concept of "God." I would be more than happy for anyone to go over posts, or threads. When demands were made of my positions or meaning, I tried to fill them as best I could without falling for a silly game. When I asked for clarification of any terms, I had no rights what so ever, because I am in-fact a religious wacko-nut-job. For being one of the such, I would like to see evidence of my "preaching" insanity. He is not the only one, but often first to jump at the chance. Very predictable.
I would also like to point out, very hard to prove, that some of his posts were altered when I brought up more facts (about his posts) in the exchange that he and I had in that particular thread about dialogue.
He see's no merit what so ever to "spirituality/religion" therefore, how would he be capable of seeing any merit in my posts without bias. He is leaping before looking, and in fact doesn't even see the need to look, nor understand. I will simply state what I did from the begining of this thread.
QUOTE
I know the meaning of irony btw. It's in the title of this thread.
He doesn't see it to be insulting at all to mock the whole of people who believe in any form or concept of "God." I would be more than happy for anyone to go over posts, or threads. When demands were made of my positions or meaning, I tried to fill them as best I could without falling for a silly game. When I asked for clarification of any terms, I had no rights what so ever, because I am in-fact a religious wacko-nut-job. For being one of the such, I would like to see evidence of my "preaching" insanity. He is not the only one, but often first to jump at the chance. Very predictable.
I would also like to point out, very hard to prove, that some of his posts were altered when I brought up more facts (about his posts) in the exchange that he and I had in that particular thread about dialogue.
I would also like to ask thedoc to defend the accuracy of this statement he made:
thedoc is stating that the formula Mpants gave - W H W W W W* H refers to a melodic minor, when in fact it doesn't, and never will do. Then he waffles on, as if he knows what he is talking about, that this is often interpreted to be harmonic minor if no specific distinction is made as to whether it is ascending or descending. Sorry thedoc, you are wrong, a descending melodic minor reverts back to natural minor, unless it is being used as a jazz minor, where it keeps the same formula both ascending and descending. Therefore Mpants and you are ALWAYS wrong in what you are saying. Isn't that right gmilam? Is it too much to ask that you confirm what I am saying is true?
You are just interested in backing Mpants, at the cost of accurate knowledge. And thereby you throw the whole principle of scientific attitude out of the window.
QUOTE
The first formula merely refers to a melodic minor, which (as MPants has said before) is often interpreted to be the harmonic minor if no specific distinction is made as to whether it is ascending or descending. As it happens, the harmonic minor does indeed make use of an augmented second.
thedoc is stating that the formula Mpants gave - W H W W W W* H refers to a melodic minor, when in fact it doesn't, and never will do. Then he waffles on, as if he knows what he is talking about, that this is often interpreted to be harmonic minor if no specific distinction is made as to whether it is ascending or descending. Sorry thedoc, you are wrong, a descending melodic minor reverts back to natural minor, unless it is being used as a jazz minor, where it keeps the same formula both ascending and descending. Therefore Mpants and you are ALWAYS wrong in what you are saying. Isn't that right gmilam? Is it too much to ask that you confirm what I am saying is true?
You are just interested in backing Mpants, at the cost of accurate knowledge. And thereby you throw the whole principle of scientific attitude out of the window.
I don't think that this thread is working out as rpenner had hoped for.
It's just a continuation of the bitch fight going on in the other threads.
It's just a continuation of the bitch fight going on in the other threads.
Well i'll jump in on this, tried to avoid it, but the more i thought about it, the more agitated i became.
This guy makes me grind my teeth every time i read his posts...
Magpies
One small example of his complete ignorance to science, and inability to think past grade-7 science class.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26009&st=0
This guy makes me grind my teeth every time i read his posts...
Magpies
One small example of his complete ignorance to science, and inability to think past grade-7 science class.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26009&st=0
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 11 2009, 04:18 AM)
I think your just giving up to early. You have to actualy try to figure out a way to do it 
I know there is a way it must be possible cmon try...
I know there is a way it must be possible cmon try...QUOTE (magpies+Jun 11 2009, 04:27 AM)
Yeah you got me I already knew the answer to this question I just wanted to see if anyone else did. So do they? Because clearly my answer is correct.
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 11 2009, 07:52 PM)
Or I could know how to make magnetic field lines laser???
Guess youll never know.
Guess youll never know.
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 11 2009, 11:40 PM)
Its a puzzle.
I admit, i am not a scientist, nor am i educated to the level of many of you guys. However one major thing separates me from this imbecile... I admit i am not finished with my education, while this guy rants on like he is king of the world, and the smartest being in the universe.
Furthermore, he is delusional. Sad thing is, he truly believes his own little reality!
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26005
I admit, i am not a scientist, nor am i educated to the level of many of you guys. However one major thing separates me from this imbecile... I admit i am not finished with my education, while this guy rants on like he is king of the world, and the smartest being in the universe.
Furthermore, he is delusional. Sad thing is, he truly believes his own little reality!
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26005
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 10 2009, 09:42 PM)
You cant shoot lightning from your finger tips because you don't have the will to. If you had the will to do it you would do it. It all begins with choice but your not here to make the choice your here to understand why you made it and probably make a new one.
How about i exert my will to rid of you forever...
How about i exert my will to rid of you forever...
"Even silence speaks."
QUOTE (Liu+)
The true Melodic minor has nothing to do with the Harmonic minor, and he is buildign a strawman here.
Any student of music knows this to be completely false. The melodic minors were developed from and in response to the harmonic minor. The scales have a great deal to do with each other, as indicated in the wiki link I earlier provided.
This is a contradiction of the claim his whole argument is based on. I clearly identify the scale I gave as a "true melodic minor (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)."
In other words, I called that formula a harmonic minor. Liu has not disputed the truth of claim until now, he has only disputed that I ever made it, despite having the evidence in the form of that quote presented to him numerous times. Even if the term "true melodic minor" is one of my own devising (which it is not), I defined what I meant by that term in my initial post by stating it was "...otherwise known as a harmonic minor."
This is a contradiction of the claim his whole argument is based on. I clearly identify the scale I gave as a "true melodic minor (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)."
In other words, I called that formula a harmonic minor. Liu has not disputed the truth of claim until now, he has only disputed that I ever made it, despite having the evidence in the form of that quote presented to him numerous times. Even if the term "true melodic minor" is one of my own devising (which it is not), I defined what I meant by that term in my initial post by stating it was "...otherwise known as a harmonic minor."
An ascending melodic minor scale formula is the only true formula for that named scale, and Mpants is talking comlete rubbish here.
This is simply not true.
The 'melodic minor' is played W H W W W W H when it ascends and W W H W W H W when it descends (note that the second formula is inverted, with the highest tone being the first in deference to the identical formula it shares with the natural minor).
In other words, the 'melodic minor scale' is:
Any student of music knows this to be completely false. The melodic minors were developed from and in response to the harmonic minor. The scales have a great deal to do with each other, as indicated in the wiki link I earlier provided.
QUOTE
This statement is completely false all round:
This is a contradiction of the claim his whole argument is based on. I clearly identify the scale I gave as a "true melodic minor (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)."
In other words, I called that formula a harmonic minor. Liu has not disputed the truth of claim until now, he has only disputed that I ever made it, despite having the evidence in the form of that quote presented to him numerous times. Even if the term "true melodic minor" is one of my own devising (which it is not), I defined what I meant by that term in my initial post by stating it was "...otherwise known as a harmonic minor."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This statement is completely false all round: |
This is a contradiction of the claim his whole argument is based on. I clearly identify the scale I gave as a "true melodic minor (otherwise known as a harmonic minor)."
In other words, I called that formula a harmonic minor. Liu has not disputed the truth of claim until now, he has only disputed that I ever made it, despite having the evidence in the form of that quote presented to him numerous times. Even if the term "true melodic minor" is one of my own devising (which it is not), I defined what I meant by that term in my initial post by stating it was "...otherwise known as a harmonic minor."
An ascending melodic minor scale formula is the only true formula for that named scale, and Mpants is talking comlete rubbish here.
This is simply not true.
The 'melodic minor' is played W H W W W W H when it ascends and W W H W W H W when it descends (note that the second formula is inverted, with the highest tone being the first in deference to the identical formula it shares with the natural minor).
In other words, the 'melodic minor scale' is:
QUOTE
AW H W W W W H
DW W H W W H W
orDW W H W W H W
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| AW H W W W W H DW W H W W H W |
orW H W W W/H W H/W
and not simply:
I provided two possible ways of giving the 'melodic minor' formula there, there are several others.
I provided two possible ways of giving the 'melodic minor' formula there, there are several others.
The melodic minor ascends with the 6th and 7th note raised (as explained correctly by Gmilam). In classical music the melodic minor was used for ascending melodies (hence melodic minor name), but reverted to the normal natural minor scale on the descent. For example, the notes A C D E F# G# A, G F E D C A A composer here would use the melodic minor to ascend a melody, but revert to natural minor on the way down.
In this entire section, Liu acknowledges as factual what I have been claiming about the melodic minors all along: The 'melodic minor' is comprised of two different scales, one used for the ascending and one for the descending. His information about the origins of the name is incorrect as well, the melodic and harmonic minors derive their names from the relationship between the notes of the scales (the name actually refers to the melodious relationship between the notes, contrasting it with the harmonious relationship between notes of the harmonic minor. The difference between "melodious" and "harmonious" in this sense is a subtle one that has only existed for a few hundred years, and is somewhat difficult to explain. An easy but limited way to think of it is that melodious notes are easy for a tone-deaf person to sing, while harmonious notes sound good when sung together).
(EDIT #1: I initially misunderstood his reference to the origin of the name, however I have edited my response to reflect his actual claim about it, and not what I initially thought he was saying.)
Not once did I ever give an example of one of the melodic minors and call it a harmonic minor. This is a straw-man.
Not once did I ever give an example of one of the melodic minors and call it a harmonic minor. This is a straw-man.
He gives the formula for harmonic minor, and then tries to qualify that with another untruth about "you only specified it ascending". Check with any music theorist and I am 100% confident that I will be seen to be correct.
The fact is, a self-educated music theorist by the name of Lui Di Martino has already explained the dual nature of the melodic minors, while my contention that he continually supplied only the ascending scale (which -again- is the jazz minor) is evident in his posts. There is absolutely nothing untrue about my claim that he's only been specifying the ascending mode, and he himself confirmed that this is not an accurate representation of the melodic minors, only half of it.
The term "jazz minor" is a formal term. I didn't invent it. To call it a "get out clause" is to imply that either I invented the term, or it is not a formal term, but an informal label.
Additionally, it does not address the fact that Liu has simply called my claim about his mistake wrong on numerous occasions, instead of ever (before now) acknowledging that the melodic minor ascends and descends differently. He has, until today, continually implied that the melodic minor is a single scale which ascends and descends using the same formula.
The term "jazz minor" is a formal term. I didn't invent it. To call it a "get out clause" is to imply that either I invented the term, or it is not a formal term, but an informal label.
Additionally, it does not address the fact that Liu has simply called my claim about his mistake wrong on numerous occasions, instead of ever (before now) acknowledging that the melodic minor ascends and descends differently. He has, until today, continually implied that the melodic minor is a single scale which ascends and descends using the same formula.
Melodic minor - W H W W W W H, for example, A B C D E F# G# A
Jazz Minor - W H W W W W H, for example, A B C D E F# G# A
Did I say "until today" above? As you can clearly see, he is still implying that, despite having explicitly contradicted this earlier.
Liu's entire complaint hinges upon him (and any observers) ignoring the portion of my original post in which I clearly stated that one of the names of the formula I gave was "harmonic minor". Note that I have yet to contradict myself in any way, while he has contradicted himself numerous times.
Liu's entire complaint hinges upon him (and any observers) ignoring the portion of my original post in which I clearly stated that one of the names of the formula I gave was "harmonic minor". Note that I have yet to contradict myself in any way, while he has contradicted himself numerous times.
He is trying to twist it by saying I am not giving the notes for a true melodic minor, which is a false accusation.
(While he is not actually giving the notes for a 'true melodic minor', this is incidental. I know that Liu is not using that term in the same sense I am.)
My claim actually is that he is wrong about his accusations against me. The fact that he continually gives a jazz minor formula in place of the full melodic minor formula is simply one that I have mentioned repeatedly to bring to light his own dishonesty and refusal to admit any mistake.
If you have read the wiki page, you know that I am correct about the formula ascending and descending seperately. If you read the other off-site link I earlier provided, you know that I am correct about the ascending melodic minor scale and the jazz minor scale being identical.
If you have read the wiki page, you know that I am correct about the formula ascending and descending seperately. If you read the other off-site link I earlier provided, you know that I am correct about the ascending melodic minor scale and the jazz minor scale being identical.
I reiterate, melodic minor is NEVER harmonic minor, nor is harmonic minor EVER associated with Jazz minor. So his defence regarding that is a complete strawman
This is quite ironic: He sets up a straw man by implying that I've called the harmonic minor the jazz minor, then accuses me of setting up straw men. This is both a lie (It's not a straw-man) and a straw-man itself (I never claimed or even implied that a harmonic minor was a jazz minor), as well as being all around hypocritical.
Indeed... Will a banned member be allowed to continue to create new sockpuppets with which to continue his campaign of abuse and disruption, or will he be (at the least) confronted with and punished (yet again) for his own inappropriate behavior?
To sum up my response to his complaint, I am asserting that I did not give the harmonic minor scale formula and claim it to be the ascending or descending melodic minor scale formula, or a combination of the two. In fact, in my very next post after the original post in question (link and quote provided below, at note 1) I acknowledged making an error by misunderstanding his question, which was the second time I'd done so, the first such acknowledgment having taken place in the original post, along with a correction (link and quote provided below, at note 2). Note that while my corrected answer is accurate, Liu has yet to admit as much.
Note 1: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=369311
Indeed... Will a banned member be allowed to continue to create new sockpuppets with which to continue his campaign of abuse and disruption, or will he be (at the least) confronted with and punished (yet again) for his own inappropriate behavior?
To sum up my response to his complaint, I am asserting that I did not give the harmonic minor scale formula and claim it to be the ascending or descending melodic minor scale formula, or a combination of the two. In fact, in my very next post after the original post in question (link and quote provided below, at note 1) I acknowledged making an error by misunderstanding his question, which was the second time I'd done so, the first such acknowledgment having taken place in the original post, along with a correction (link and quote provided below, at note 2). Note that while my corrected answer is accurate, Liu has yet to admit as much.
Note 1: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=369311I answered the 'wrong' question. I skimmed the question, then glanced at a keyboard, then came back an answered. I missed your mention of the two forms, which changed the question in my mind. In answer to the question "what is the inversion of the harmonic minor scale?" the correct answer is "the chakravakam scale".
Note 2: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=369304
(EDIT #2: Added the second version of the correct formula for the 'melodic minor' and summed up my response in the final paragraph with the corresponding notes.)
[ Administrative summary.
Case 09-00001. Follow-up to Cross-Complaint. TobyNotToby v. MjolnirPants.
Original Claim 1: The one true Melodic Minor scale is W H W W W W* H.
Defense Claim 1: Presents Post which indicates defendant called "true melodic minor" synonymous with "harmonic minor" and gave pattern as W H W W H W* H = 12 semitones. All reference sources require any scale to contain 12 semitones, which is to say one octave per octave. Original complaint would have required 13.
Follow-up 1: Even if MjolnirPants intended to define "true melodic minor" as synonymous as "harmonic minor" in the original post (Aug 27, 2008), he does not get to do that. The court must consult an expert.
--
Claim 2: MjolnirPants denies claim one.
Defense Claim 2: Defense acknowledges that Defense denies assertion made in Original Claim 1, but asserts that it should be no crime to tell the truth.
--
Claim 3: MjolnirPants has spread disinformation as in Claim 2 to the detriment of the current and future readers of this board who may be materially affected.
Defense Claim 3: Repeats Defense Claim 2: "Have not."
--
Claim 4: MjolnirPants has spread disinformation as in Claim 2 despite knowing better and as a calculated step.
Defense Claim 4: Repeats Defense Claim 2: "Have not."
--
Claim 5: Pointless discussion ensued.
Defense Claim 5: While discussion may have been pointless indeed, that is for the most part attributed to Original Complainer bringing up the same incorrect points and bad faith in responding to posts as they are written. Evidence cited for contextomy.
--
Claim 6: MjolnirPants later cited Wikipedia as a source for Claim 1.
Defense Claim 6: Still does.
--
Claim 7: To the extent any correction of misinformation as in Claim 2 happened, that correction was untimely.
Defense Claim 7: Repeats Defense Claim 2: "Have not."
--
Claim 8: The Jazz Minor is not the Harmonic Minor.
Defense Claim 8: Indeed, the Jazz minor is the melodic minor (and not true melodic) scale(s).
--
Claim 9: The one true Melodic Minor as in Claim 1 is identical to the Jazz Minor.
Defense Claim 9: It can't be.
Follow-up 9: Concedes point. Meant "ascending melodic minor" not "true melodic minor"
--
Petition for Relief 1: Force MjolnirPants to admit mistake.
Argument: Because Claim 5 is asserted, it follows that Claim 4. Claim 6 and Claim 2 together imply that MjolnirPants does not consistently subscribe to Claim 1. ]
Defense argument: From context, it was clear that the actual post was treating "true melodic minor" as synonymous with "harmonic minor" which all parties agree what was represented by me in evidenced post. All of this is in Complainer's own head.
Original Followup: Agrees with intent, disagrees with efficacy.
Cross-claim 10: TobyNotToby lies consistently
--
Cross-claim 11: TobyNotToby abuses other members
--
Cross-claim 12: TobyNotToby is a general disruption
--
Cross-claim 13: In support of 10, repeat defense claims 1, 2 and 9
Defense to Cross-claim 13: Repeat followups to 1 and 9.
Follow-up to 13: Cites chapter and verse to strengthen followups to 1 and 9.
--
Cross-claim 14: In support of 12, repeat defense claim 1 and 5.
Defense to Cross-claim 14: Repeat followups to 1.
Follow-up to 14: Demonstrates many times where reading the oft-referred-to original post would actually have settled matters had there been good will.
--
Cross-claim 15: In support of 10, add assertion that TobyNotToby disregards Jazz minor and melodic minor scales being identical in various sources.
--
Cross-claim 16: In support of 11, cites post to buttershug, post to buttershug, post to occidental, post to TheDoc, post to TheDoc, post to RobDegraves, post to RobDegraves
--
Cross-claim 17: In support of 12, cites post to Meem
--
Cross-claim 18: In support of 12, cites user's long history of returning from bans, as evidenced at least by Complainer's own words in post to Meem and the cause of complaint which arises with boneidol.
--
Petition for Cross-claim relief 1: Ban TobyNotToby
Petition for Cross-claim relief 2: Block TobyNotToby's IP address.
Argument for Cross-claim: claims 10-12 are well-supported and require removal.
Defense argument for Cross-claim: None offered.
]
............. and the can of worms is well and truly open.
QUOTE
W H W W W W H
I provided two possible ways of giving the 'melodic minor' formula there, there are several others.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| W H W W W W H |
I provided two possible ways of giving the 'melodic minor' formula there, there are several others.
The melodic minor ascends with the 6th and 7th note raised (as explained correctly by Gmilam). In classical music the melodic minor was used for ascending melodies (hence melodic minor name), but reverted to the normal natural minor scale on the descent. For example, the notes A C D E F# G# A, G F E D C A A composer here would use the melodic minor to ascend a melody, but revert to natural minor on the way down.
In this entire section, Liu acknowledges as factual what I have been claiming about the melodic minors all along: The 'melodic minor' is comprised of two different scales, one used for the ascending and one for the descending. His information about the origins of the name is incorrect as well, the melodic and harmonic minors derive their names from the relationship between the notes of the scales (the name actually refers to the melodious relationship between the notes, contrasting it with the harmonious relationship between notes of the harmonic minor. The difference between "melodious" and "harmonious" in this sense is a subtle one that has only existed for a few hundred years, and is somewhat difficult to explain. An easy but limited way to think of it is that melodious notes are easy for a tone-deaf person to sing, while harmonious notes sound good when sung together).
(EDIT #1: I initially misunderstood his reference to the origin of the name, however I have edited my response to reflect his actual claim about it, and not what I initially thought he was saying.)
QUOTE
This has NOTHING to do with the Harmonic minor
Not once did I ever give an example of one of the melodic minors and call it a harmonic minor. This is a straw-man.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This has NOTHING to do with the Harmonic minor |
Not once did I ever give an example of one of the melodic minors and call it a harmonic minor. This is a straw-man.
He gives the formula for harmonic minor, and then tries to qualify that with another untruth about "you only specified it ascending". Check with any music theorist and I am 100% confident that I will be seen to be correct.
The fact is, a self-educated music theorist by the name of Lui Di Martino has already explained the dual nature of the melodic minors, while my contention that he continually supplied only the ascending scale (which -again- is the jazz minor) is evident in his posts. There is absolutely nothing untrue about my claim that he's only been specifying the ascending mode, and he himself confirmed that this is not an accurate representation of the melodic minors, only half of it.
QUOTE
The "get out clause" for Mpants is the modern use of the melodic minor, made popular by jazz musicians. They play the same scale both ascending and descending, not reverting back to natural minor.
The term "jazz minor" is a formal term. I didn't invent it. To call it a "get out clause" is to imply that either I invented the term, or it is not a formal term, but an informal label.
Additionally, it does not address the fact that Liu has simply called my claim about his mistake wrong on numerous occasions, instead of ever (before now) acknowledging that the melodic minor ascends and descends differently. He has, until today, continually implied that the melodic minor is a single scale which ascends and descends using the same formula.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The "get out clause" for Mpants is the modern use of the melodic minor, made popular by jazz musicians. They play the same scale both ascending and descending, not reverting back to natural minor. |
The term "jazz minor" is a formal term. I didn't invent it. To call it a "get out clause" is to imply that either I invented the term, or it is not a formal term, but an informal label.
Additionally, it does not address the fact that Liu has simply called my claim about his mistake wrong on numerous occasions, instead of ever (before now) acknowledging that the melodic minor ascends and descends differently. He has, until today, continually implied that the melodic minor is a single scale which ascends and descends using the same formula.
Melodic minor - W H W W W W H, for example, A B C D E F# G# A
Jazz Minor - W H W W W W H, for example, A B C D E F# G# A
Did I say "until today" above? As you can clearly see, he is still implying that, despite having explicitly contradicted this earlier.
QUOTE
Mpants's logic is fundamentally flawed, and I ask that he own up to his mistake.
Liu's entire complaint hinges upon him (and any observers) ignoring the portion of my original post in which I clearly stated that one of the names of the formula I gave was "harmonic minor". Note that I have yet to contradict myself in any way, while he has contradicted himself numerous times.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Mpants's logic is fundamentally flawed, and I ask that he own up to his mistake. |
Liu's entire complaint hinges upon him (and any observers) ignoring the portion of my original post in which I clearly stated that one of the names of the formula I gave was "harmonic minor". Note that I have yet to contradict myself in any way, while he has contradicted himself numerous times.
He is trying to twist it by saying I am not giving the notes for a true melodic minor, which is a false accusation.
(While he is not actually giving the notes for a 'true melodic minor', this is incidental. I know that Liu is not using that term in the same sense I am.)
My claim actually is that he is wrong about his accusations against me. The fact that he continually gives a jazz minor formula in place of the full melodic minor formula is simply one that I have mentioned repeatedly to bring to light his own dishonesty and refusal to admit any mistake.
QUOTE
And , funnily enough, all this can be confirmed on the wiki page he posted.
If you have read the wiki page, you know that I am correct about the formula ascending and descending seperately. If you read the other off-site link I earlier provided, you know that I am correct about the ascending melodic minor scale and the jazz minor scale being identical.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And , funnily enough, all this can be confirmed on the wiki page he posted. |
If you have read the wiki page, you know that I am correct about the formula ascending and descending seperately. If you read the other off-site link I earlier provided, you know that I am correct about the ascending melodic minor scale and the jazz minor scale being identical.
I reiterate, melodic minor is NEVER harmonic minor, nor is harmonic minor EVER associated with Jazz minor. So his defence regarding that is a complete strawman
This is quite ironic: He sets up a straw man by implying that I've called the harmonic minor the jazz minor, then accuses me of setting up straw men. This is both a lie (It's not a straw-man) and a straw-man itself (I never claimed or even implied that a harmonic minor was a jazz minor), as well as being all around hypocritical.
QUOTE
The question regarding physforum's integrity is being asked.
Indeed... Will a banned member be allowed to continue to create new sockpuppets with which to continue his campaign of abuse and disruption, or will he be (at the least) confronted with and punished (yet again) for his own inappropriate behavior?
To sum up my response to his complaint, I am asserting that I did not give the harmonic minor scale formula and claim it to be the ascending or descending melodic minor scale formula, or a combination of the two. In fact, in my very next post after the original post in question (link and quote provided below, at note 1) I acknowledged making an error by misunderstanding his question, which was the second time I'd done so, the first such acknowledgment having taken place in the original post, along with a correction (link and quote provided below, at note 2). Note that while my corrected answer is accurate, Liu has yet to admit as much.
Note 1: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=369311
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The question regarding physforum's integrity is being asked. |
Indeed... Will a banned member be allowed to continue to create new sockpuppets with which to continue his campaign of abuse and disruption, or will he be (at the least) confronted with and punished (yet again) for his own inappropriate behavior?
To sum up my response to his complaint, I am asserting that I did not give the harmonic minor scale formula and claim it to be the ascending or descending melodic minor scale formula, or a combination of the two. In fact, in my very next post after the original post in question (link and quote provided below, at note 1) I acknowledged making an error by misunderstanding his question, which was the second time I'd done so, the first such acknowledgment having taken place in the original post, along with a correction (link and quote provided below, at note 2). Note that while my corrected answer is accurate, Liu has yet to admit as much.
Note 1: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=369311I answered the 'wrong' question. I skimmed the question, then glanced at a keyboard, then came back an answered. I missed your mention of the two forms, which changed the question in my mind. In answer to the question "what is the inversion of the harmonic minor scale?" the correct answer is "the chakravakam scale".
Note 2: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=369304
QUOTE
While that's not the A melodic minor (it's the A ascending melodic monir), you got one thing right, I didn't get the question the way you apparently meant it. So using the ascending melodic minor, we get the formula W H W W W W H. It's inversion is the minor 7, b9.
(EDIT #2: Added the second version of the correct formula for the 'melodic minor' and summed up my response in the final paragraph with the corresponding notes.)
[ Administrative summary.
Case 09-00001. Follow-up to Cross-Complaint. TobyNotToby v. MjolnirPants.
Original Claim 1: The one true Melodic Minor scale is W H W W W W* H.
Defense Claim 1: Presents Post which indicates defendant called "true melodic minor" synonymous with "harmonic minor" and gave pattern as W H W W H W* H = 12 semitones. All reference sources require any scale to contain 12 semitones, which is to say one octave per octave. Original complaint would have required 13.
Follow-up 1: Even if MjolnirPants intended to define "true melodic minor" as synonymous as "harmonic minor" in the original post (Aug 27, 2008), he does not get to do that. The court must consult an expert.
--
Claim 2: MjolnirPants denies claim one.
Defense Claim 2: Defense acknowledges that Defense denies assertion made in Original Claim 1, but asserts that it should be no crime to tell the truth.
--
Claim 3: MjolnirPants has spread disinformation as in Claim 2 to the detriment of the current and future readers of this board who may be materially affected.
Defense Claim 3: Repeats Defense Claim 2: "Have not."
--
Claim 4: MjolnirPants has spread disinformation as in Claim 2 despite knowing better and as a calculated step.
Defense Claim 4: Repeats Defense Claim 2: "Have not."
--
Claim 5: Pointless discussion ensued.
Defense Claim 5: While discussion may have been pointless indeed, that is for the most part attributed to Original Complainer bringing up the same incorrect points and bad faith in responding to posts as they are written. Evidence cited for contextomy.
--
Claim 6: MjolnirPants later cited Wikipedia as a source for Claim 1.
Defense Claim 6: Still does.
--
Claim 7: To the extent any correction of misinformation as in Claim 2 happened, that correction was untimely.
Defense Claim 7: Repeats Defense Claim 2: "Have not."
--
Claim 8: The Jazz Minor is not the Harmonic Minor.
Defense Claim 8: Indeed, the Jazz minor is the melodic minor (and not true melodic) scale(s).
--
Claim 9: The one true Melodic Minor as in Claim 1 is identical to the Jazz Minor.
Defense Claim 9: It can't be.
Follow-up 9: Concedes point. Meant "ascending melodic minor" not "true melodic minor"
--
Petition for Relief 1: Force MjolnirPants to admit mistake.
Argument: Because Claim 5 is asserted, it follows that Claim 4. Claim 6 and Claim 2 together imply that MjolnirPants does not consistently subscribe to Claim 1. ]
Defense argument: From context, it was clear that the actual post was treating "true melodic minor" as synonymous with "harmonic minor" which all parties agree what was represented by me in evidenced post. All of this is in Complainer's own head.
Original Followup: Agrees with intent, disagrees with efficacy.
Cross-claim 10: TobyNotToby lies consistently
--
Cross-claim 11: TobyNotToby abuses other members
--
Cross-claim 12: TobyNotToby is a general disruption
--
Cross-claim 13: In support of 10, repeat defense claims 1, 2 and 9
Defense to Cross-claim 13: Repeat followups to 1 and 9.
Follow-up to 13: Cites chapter and verse to strengthen followups to 1 and 9.
--
Cross-claim 14: In support of 12, repeat defense claim 1 and 5.
Defense to Cross-claim 14: Repeat followups to 1.
Follow-up to 14: Demonstrates many times where reading the oft-referred-to original post would actually have settled matters had there been good will.
--
Cross-claim 15: In support of 10, add assertion that TobyNotToby disregards Jazz minor and melodic minor scales being identical in various sources.
--
Cross-claim 16: In support of 11, cites post to buttershug, post to buttershug, post to occidental, post to TheDoc, post to TheDoc, post to RobDegraves, post to RobDegraves
--
Cross-claim 17: In support of 12, cites post to Meem
--
Cross-claim 18: In support of 12, cites user's long history of returning from bans, as evidenced at least by Complainer's own words in post to Meem and the cause of complaint which arises with boneidol.
--
Petition for Cross-claim relief 1: Ban TobyNotToby
Petition for Cross-claim relief 2: Block TobyNotToby's IP address.
Argument for Cross-claim: claims 10-12 are well-supported and require removal.
Defense argument for Cross-claim: None offered.
]
............. and the can of worms is well and truly open.
We do need Rpenner to admin these as soon as possible or the bickering will not end.
Case 09-00001. Ruling. TobyNotToby v. MjolnirPants.
Complainer is a many-times banned and suspended user who shows little recent evidence of good will towards any of his fellow posters.
Defendant is a musician.
Complainer claims on August 27, 2008 Defendant has impermissibly introduced the term "true melodic minor" and defined it contrary to good practice.
Defendant claims that the the term has always been carefully defined as synonymous with "harmonic minor," a generally accepted term, and the pattern given is consistent with standard references.
Defendant counter-claims that Complainer is a liar, a disruption and an abusive person.
Complainer demands (however optimistically evaluating this Courts control over the behavior of the members) an apology and retraction from the Defendant.
Defendant demands steps taken towards the permanent exclusion of Complainer.
Court finds Complainer offers no demonstration of competence in the field of music theory, no demonstration that "true melodic minor" has a definition in wide use. Court finds that self-definitions of words are the strongest definitions found in contract law, and the basis of the work of dictionary-makers. Court finds a distinct lack of good faith on the part of the complainer by being quick to cite only a miserly portion of the original post. Court's own experts (a published composer and musician with formal training and textbooks) find Complaint's 13-semitone scale as contrary to good musical practice.
Complainer concedes to Defendant that "true melodic minor" is not synonymous in general practice with "ascending melodic minor".
While it is not clear that Complainer is always lying, the untruths abound and there is plenty of evidence of lack of good will in achieving a meeting of the minds, abuse directed at parties, hateful commentary sent to prejudice third-parties and willful disregard of forum administration.
This Court finds the Complainer the victim of his own ill will and lack of dedication to achieve a meeting of the minds. Accordingly, we find that the Defendant was in the correct with respect to the term "harmonic minor" and not proven wrong with respect to the introduced synonym "true harmonic minor". Without reaching the issue of whether or not this Court has the physical, legal, or moral power to order an apology, this relief is DENIED.
This Court also finds that Complainer goes a long way to prove the cross-claims against himself. For the most part, no defense to the cross-claim was offered except where it touched upon the original claim. Accordingly we order the relief sought in the cross-complaint GRANTED PARTIALLY and order that to the extent possible, Complainer should be prevented from posting on this forum again.
Complainer is a many-times banned and suspended user who shows little recent evidence of good will towards any of his fellow posters.
Defendant is a musician.
Complainer claims on August 27, 2008 Defendant has impermissibly introduced the term "true melodic minor" and defined it contrary to good practice.
Defendant claims that the the term has always been carefully defined as synonymous with "harmonic minor," a generally accepted term, and the pattern given is consistent with standard references.
Defendant counter-claims that Complainer is a liar, a disruption and an abusive person.
Complainer demands (however optimistically evaluating this Courts control over the behavior of the members) an apology and retraction from the Defendant.
Defendant demands steps taken towards the permanent exclusion of Complainer.
Court finds Complainer offers no demonstration of competence in the field of music theory, no demonstration that "true melodic minor" has a definition in wide use. Court finds that self-definitions of words are the strongest definitions found in contract law, and the basis of the work of dictionary-makers. Court finds a distinct lack of good faith on the part of the complainer by being quick to cite only a miserly portion of the original post. Court's own experts (a published composer and musician with formal training and textbooks) find Complaint's 13-semitone scale as contrary to good musical practice.
Complainer concedes to Defendant that "true melodic minor" is not synonymous in general practice with "ascending melodic minor".
While it is not clear that Complainer is always lying, the untruths abound and there is plenty of evidence of lack of good will in achieving a meeting of the minds, abuse directed at parties, hateful commentary sent to prejudice third-parties and willful disregard of forum administration.
This Court finds the Complainer the victim of his own ill will and lack of dedication to achieve a meeting of the minds. Accordingly, we find that the Defendant was in the correct with respect to the term "harmonic minor" and not proven wrong with respect to the introduced synonym "true harmonic minor". Without reaching the issue of whether or not this Court has the physical, legal, or moral power to order an apology, this relief is DENIED.
This Court also finds that Complainer goes a long way to prove the cross-claims against himself. For the most part, no defense to the cross-claim was offered except where it touched upon the original claim. Accordingly we order the relief sought in the cross-complaint GRANTED PARTIALLY and order that to the extent possible, Complainer should be prevented from posting on this forum again.
That's all I needed to know rpenner. You are allowing the lie from mpants, but taking exception to my behaviour.
I've been banned twice. If whoever was in charge when BDW (Mpants) should have been banned for his four warnings, and a last post full of F-You in them, was obviously as biased as this place intends to be.
I suspect many people here have had more than one account. Look at mr Molluscs, for example.
You people have proved very poor assessors. You are on your way to secthood.
I wouldn't wipe my nose on a tissue with the memories of physforum written on it.
I've been banned twice. If whoever was in charge when BDW (Mpants) should have been banned for his four warnings, and a last post full of F-You in them, was obviously as biased as this place intends to be.
I suspect many people here have had more than one account. Look at mr Molluscs, for example.
You people have proved very poor assessors. You are on your way to secthood.
I wouldn't wipe my nose on a tissue with the memories of physforum written on it.
With all due respect to the Court, I would challenge His Honourīs ruling in this case on the following grounds:
1. The rules of the Court require a complaint to be "specific" but the first line of the judgement refers to the Complainerīs alleged previous offences. This not only contravenes the rules of the Court but suggests a bias bordering on presumption of Complainerīs guilt. Natural justice and well established practice in western legal systems require a presumption of innocence.
2. There is an unquestioned acceptance that the Defendant is a musician. This has not been established beyond reasonable doubt and the possession of some degree of musical knowledge and/or ability should not lead to a presumption that the Defendant actually knows what he is talking about in regard to the specific topic under discussion.
3. The Defendant admitted to an error in one of his posts in that he omitted the word "true". While he appears to have corrected this, the Defendant attributes it to a typographical error. This casual dismissal of his error would serve to raise some doubt as to the Defendantīs level of attachment to veracity in general. This may seem a minor point but the Defendant has attempted similar tactics in wriggling out of previous erroneous posts. However, if the point concerning the specificity requirement of cases to be adjudicated by this Court as raised at 1. above is upheld then it is agreed that it would not be appropriate to raise issues regarding that Defendantīs previous posts. In this regard I cite as precedent the well documented case of Goose v Gander.
4. One of the Defendantīs counterclaims is that the Complainer is an abusive person. Any substance which might be attached to this allegation should be considered nullified by the abusive content of many of the Defendantīs posts.
5. The Court has also ruled that the Complainer has failed to demonstrate competence in the field of music. It is submitted that if lack of competence of a topic under discussion should be used as a factor in determining the outcome of a case, then the very future of the Forum would be placed at risk. This threat should be viewed in the same light as would a threat to National Security and it is urged that this element of the ruling should be tested for constitutionality.
This appeal against the ruling in this case is submitted with a fulsome expression of respect for Your Honourīs widely esteemed erudition in the legal field.
Respectfully
Edward 3
1. The rules of the Court require a complaint to be "specific" but the first line of the judgement refers to the Complainerīs alleged previous offences. This not only contravenes the rules of the Court but suggests a bias bordering on presumption of Complainerīs guilt. Natural justice and well established practice in western legal systems require a presumption of innocence.
2. There is an unquestioned acceptance that the Defendant is a musician. This has not been established beyond reasonable doubt and the possession of some degree of musical knowledge and/or ability should not lead to a presumption that the Defendant actually knows what he is talking about in regard to the specific topic under discussion.
3. The Defendant admitted to an error in one of his posts in that he omitted the word "true". While he appears to have corrected this, the Defendant attributes it to a typographical error. This casual dismissal of his error would serve to raise some doubt as to the Defendantīs level of attachment to veracity in general. This may seem a minor point but the Defendant has attempted similar tactics in wriggling out of previous erroneous posts. However, if the point concerning the specificity requirement of cases to be adjudicated by this Court as raised at 1. above is upheld then it is agreed that it would not be appropriate to raise issues regarding that Defendantīs previous posts. In this regard I cite as precedent the well documented case of Goose v Gander.
4. One of the Defendantīs counterclaims is that the Complainer is an abusive person. Any substance which might be attached to this allegation should be considered nullified by the abusive content of many of the Defendantīs posts.
5. The Court has also ruled that the Complainer has failed to demonstrate competence in the field of music. It is submitted that if lack of competence of a topic under discussion should be used as a factor in determining the outcome of a case, then the very future of the Forum would be placed at risk. This threat should be viewed in the same light as would a threat to National Security and it is urged that this element of the ruling should be tested for constitutionality.
This appeal against the ruling in this case is submitted with a fulsome expression of respect for Your Honourīs widely esteemed erudition in the legal field.
Respectfully
Edward 3
QUOTE (Boneidol+Jun 16 2009, 12:10 PM)
That's all I needed to know rpenner. You are allowing the lie from mpants, but taking exception to my behaviour.
What lie?
As I've said before it appears to me you learned something incorrectly and merely repeat it.
He provides independent references. All you provide is what you say.
It appears you can't separate the nonsense your teachers told you from the accurate stuf your teachers taught you.
Based on my experience there is a lot of nonsense thrown around in all aspects of life including from teachers. If you can't get rid of the nonsense you were taught when a child then you are stuck with it.
What lie?
As I've said before it appears to me you learned something incorrectly and merely repeat it.
He provides independent references. All you provide is what you say.
It appears you can't separate the nonsense your teachers told you from the accurate stuf your teachers taught you.
Based on my experience there is a lot of nonsense thrown around in all aspects of life including from teachers. If you can't get rid of the nonsense you were taught when a child then you are stuck with it.
I would like to agree with RobDegraves,
It will not stop, and he does know the meaning of the word irony, it is in the topic of this thread.
[QUOTE]QUOTE (MjolnirPants @ Jun 15 2009, 11:26 AM)
Incorrect.
There are many many logical reasons not to pursue nuclear weaponry.
Prohibitive costs
Ineffective allocation of resources
opposition from nuclear powers
opposition from non-nuclear powers
the appearance of war-mongering
There are more, those are just off the top of my head.
In fact, the primary logical reason to pursue the development of nuclear weapons is to either serve as a deterrent to hostile nations, or to possess the ability to destroy a hostile nation. Unless one of those two reasons is more important to a nation, then the pursuit of nuclear weapons is actually a highly illogical act.
-----------------------------
I would just like to point out an irony. I have no intention of commenting again on this thread and I won't.
I thought this was something science didn't do, but only "spiritual" types did.
Occidental
---------------------------
QUOTE
That must be something unique to your Rules of Spirituality. In science, definitions of words are decided upon beforehand, and not kept a secret like some kind of sacred knowledge only to be shared with those deemed worthy.
-------------------------------
Anyways,
Have a nice day.
------------------------------
QUOTE (Meem @ Jun 15 2009, 09:33 PM)
I would just like to point out an irony. I have no intention of commenting again on this thread and I won't.
I thought this was something science didn't do, but only "spiritual" types did.
Occidental
Anyways,
Have a nice day.
That was pretty damn incoherent...
----------------------------------
Irony
It will not stop, and he does know the meaning of the word irony, it is in the topic of this thread.
[QUOTE]QUOTE (MjolnirPants @ Jun 15 2009, 11:26 AM)
Incorrect.
There are many many logical reasons not to pursue nuclear weaponry.
Prohibitive costs
Ineffective allocation of resources
opposition from nuclear powers
opposition from non-nuclear powers
the appearance of war-mongering
There are more, those are just off the top of my head.
In fact, the primary logical reason to pursue the development of nuclear weapons is to either serve as a deterrent to hostile nations, or to possess the ability to destroy a hostile nation. Unless one of those two reasons is more important to a nation, then the pursuit of nuclear weapons is actually a highly illogical act.
-----------------------------
I would just like to point out an irony. I have no intention of commenting again on this thread and I won't.
I thought this was something science didn't do, but only "spiritual" types did.
Occidental
---------------------------
QUOTE
That must be something unique to your Rules of Spirituality. In science, definitions of words are decided upon beforehand, and not kept a secret like some kind of sacred knowledge only to be shared with those deemed worthy.
-------------------------------
Anyways,
Have a nice day.
------------------------------
QUOTE (Meem @ Jun 15 2009, 09:33 PM)
I would just like to point out an irony. I have no intention of commenting again on this thread and I won't.
I thought this was something science didn't do, but only "spiritual" types did.
Occidental
Anyways,
Have a nice day.
That was pretty damn incoherent...
----------------------------------
Irony
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 16 2009, 12:57 PM)
What lie?
As I've said before it appears to me you learned something incorrectly and merely repeat it.
He provides independent references. All you provide is what you say.
It appears you can't separate the nonsense your teachers told you from the accurate stuf your teachers taught you.
Based on my experience there is a lot of nonsense thrown around in all aspects of life including from teachers. If you can't get rid of the nonsense you were taught when a child then you are stuck with it.
Read this from wiki. Then check what I said in the second post of this thread. Then deny it anyway, who really cares. This kind of misinformation from mpants won't get past this forum.
As I've said before it appears to me you learned something incorrectly and merely repeat it.
He provides independent references. All you provide is what you say.
It appears you can't separate the nonsense your teachers told you from the accurate stuf your teachers taught you.
Based on my experience there is a lot of nonsense thrown around in all aspects of life including from teachers. If you can't get rid of the nonsense you were taught when a child then you are stuck with it.
Read this from wiki. Then check what I said in the second post of this thread. Then deny it anyway, who really cares. This kind of misinformation from mpants won't get past this forum.
QUOTE
One may therefore remember the steps in the natural minor scale - "W,H,W,W,H,W,W," (in semitones - 2 1 2 2 1 2 2) - as just the familiar major scale steps with a different starting point. C major is C D E F G A B C; the A natural minor scale is A B C D E F G A. If the scale is used with the correct corresponding key signature, the natural minor scale needs no accidentals.
Harmonic Minor Scale: 1 2 ♭3 4 5 ♭6 7 8
For example, in the key of A minor, the harmonic minor scale is:
A B C D E F G# A' (the one mpants insisted was melodic minor)
A B C D E F♯ G♯ A' and then
A' G F E D C B A respectively.
The interval between the sixth and seventh degrees of this scale (in this case F and G♯) is a minor third/augmented second. While some composers, notably Mozart, have used this interval to advantage in melodic composition, other composers, having felt it to be an awkward leap, particularly in vocal music, considered a whole step between these two scale degrees more conducive to smooth melody writing, so either the subtonic seventh was used or the sixth scale degree raised. Traditionally, music theorists have called these two options the ascending melodic (also known as heptatonia seconda) and descending melodic minor scales, the ascending being identical in its upper tetrachord to the major scale, and the descending being simply the natural minor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_scale
Harmonic Minor Scale: 1 2 ♭3 4 5 ♭6 7 8
For example, in the key of A minor, the harmonic minor scale is:
A B C D E F G# A' (the one mpants insisted was melodic minor)
A B C D E F♯ G♯ A' and then
A' G F E D C B A respectively.
The interval between the sixth and seventh degrees of this scale (in this case F and G♯) is a minor third/augmented second. While some composers, notably Mozart, have used this interval to advantage in melodic composition, other composers, having felt it to be an awkward leap, particularly in vocal music, considered a whole step between these two scale degrees more conducive to smooth melody writing, so either the subtonic seventh was used or the sixth scale degree raised. Traditionally, music theorists have called these two options the ascending melodic (also known as heptatonia seconda) and descending melodic minor scales, the ascending being identical in its upper tetrachord to the major scale, and the descending being simply the natural minor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_scale
A few points.
1. The court needs to administer the punishment equally to all sockpuppets, though I know this is hard.
2. I think it behooves the winner and loser to abide by the ruling.
3. As opposed to Edward 3 I do not think this should be directly comparable to a court of law.... with lawyers endlessly appealing and complaining about the results. If you plead your case and you lose, that is that. In this case it would be more akin to arbitration than a court of law.
I believe the entire point of this court idea is to keep the forum from imploding with the sheer weight of personal bickering that is occurring. I think this is an excellent idea and should be pursued actively. Otherwise you simply get endless pages of empty insults.
Again however, if you present you case and you lose, be a man about it and accept it. Should I lose, I certainly intend to do so.
In this case, we can see that Luis DiMartino is not being a man about it. He presented his case, lost and won't stop whining about it. This should be ended by the admin to prevent endless future whining.
1. The court needs to administer the punishment equally to all sockpuppets, though I know this is hard.
2. I think it behooves the winner and loser to abide by the ruling.
3. As opposed to Edward 3 I do not think this should be directly comparable to a court of law.... with lawyers endlessly appealing and complaining about the results. If you plead your case and you lose, that is that. In this case it would be more akin to arbitration than a court of law.
I believe the entire point of this court idea is to keep the forum from imploding with the sheer weight of personal bickering that is occurring. I think this is an excellent idea and should be pursued actively. Otherwise you simply get endless pages of empty insults.
Again however, if you present you case and you lose, be a man about it and accept it. Should I lose, I certainly intend to do so.
In this case, we can see that Luis DiMartino is not being a man about it. He presented his case, lost and won't stop whining about it. This should be ended by the admin to prevent endless future whining.
I would have no substantial disagreement with Robīs views. I have, however, one concern and that would be in regard to deciding, when a complaint is submitted, if it is worthy of consideration or if there is, in fact, no case to answer. I can quite easily envisage members who are good, decent posters getting themselves "ambushed" in one thread by a less than scrupulous member who may have otherwise been extremely badly behaved over a long period of time. It would be unfortunate if a member were to be banned in these circumstances.
As for banning all known sockpuppets of a banned member - couldnīt agree more. In fact, why not just delete the accounts of ALL sockpuppets as they come to light?
As for banning all known sockpuppets of a banned member - couldnīt agree more. In fact, why not just delete the accounts of ALL sockpuppets as they come to light?
Note, I will not pursue this matter any further. I simply wished to address this.... idiocy -for lack of a better word- one time.
QUOTE (Edward 3+Jun 16 2009, 07:40 AM)
1. The rules of the Court require a complaint to be "specific" but the first line of the judgement refers to the Complainerīs alleged previous offences.
Would you prefer that I complain about future actions? How could I possibly be specific about that? In fact, taken as a whole, this sentence makes no sense. A lack of specificity in complaints has nothing to do whatsoever with the date on which any offense occurred, beyond the fact that complaints about future actions would be by definition, unspecific.
Now that's ridiculous. Of course I assume his guilt. I've been presented with evidence of it for something like a year now, and I'm accusing him of it. If I were to asdsume his innocence, I'd be ignoring evidence and not accusing him.
Now that's ridiculous. Of course I assume his guilt. I've been presented with evidence of it for something like a year now, and I'm accusing him of it. If I were to asdsume his innocence, I'd be ignoring evidence and not accusing him.
Natural justice and well established practice in western legal systems require a presumption of innocence.
This isn't a court of law. It's an arbitration.
External sources which agree with me don't count, eh? But then, you generally don't accept any evidence which indicates I might be right about something. Weren't you just saying something about bias?
External sources which agree with me don't count, eh? But then, you generally don't accept any evidence which indicates I might be right about something. Weren't you just saying something about bias?
3. The Defendant admitted to an error in one of his posts in that he omitted the word "true". While he appears to have corrected this, the Defendant attributes it to a typographical error. This casual dismissal of his error would serve to raise some doubt as to the Defendantīs level of attachment to veracity in general.
Because as we all know, experts and knowledgeable people don't ever make typos...
Ever heard of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy?
No evidence whatsoever of this claim exists, because this is simply a bald-faced lie.
No evidence whatsoever of this claim exists, because this is simply a bald-faced lie.
4. One of the Defendantīs counterclaims is that the Complainer is an abusive person. Any substance which might be attached to this allegation should be considered nullified by the abusive content of many of the Defendantīs posts.
ROFLMAO
Indeed. However, you are ignoring (purposefully, I suspect) the fact that Liu's complaint hinges upon him knowing enough to determine whether or not I was correct. He never provided any third-party sources to evince his various claims about music.
Indeed. However, you are ignoring (purposefully, I suspect) the fact that Liu's complaint hinges upon him knowing enough to determine whether or not I was correct. He never provided any third-party sources to evince his various claims about music.
This threat should be viewed in the same light as would a threat to National Security and it is urged that this element of the ruling should be tested for constitutionality.
I'm pretty sure the only rights we have on this forum are those rpenner and neutron choose to let us have. However, feel free to prove me wrong by linking me to a list of poster's rights...
Would you prefer that I complain about future actions? How could I possibly be specific about that? In fact, taken as a whole, this sentence makes no sense. A lack of specificity in complaints has nothing to do whatsoever with the date on which any offense occurred, beyond the fact that complaints about future actions would be by definition, unspecific.
QUOTE
This not only contravenes the rules of the Court but suggests a bias bordering on presumption of Complainerīs guilt.
Now that's ridiculous. Of course I assume his guilt. I've been presented with evidence of it for something like a year now, and I'm accusing him of it. If I were to asdsume his innocence, I'd be ignoring evidence and not accusing him.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This not only contravenes the rules of the Court but suggests a bias bordering on presumption of Complainerīs guilt. |
Now that's ridiculous. Of course I assume his guilt. I've been presented with evidence of it for something like a year now, and I'm accusing him of it. If I were to asdsume his innocence, I'd be ignoring evidence and not accusing him.
Natural justice and well established practice in western legal systems require a presumption of innocence.
This isn't a court of law. It's an arbitration.
QUOTE
2. There is an unquestioned acceptance that the Defendant is a musician. This has not been established beyond reasonable doubt and the possession of some degree of musical knowledge and/or ability should not lead to a presumption that the Defendant actually knows what he is talking about in regard to the specific topic under discussion.
External sources which agree with me don't count, eh? But then, you generally don't accept any evidence which indicates I might be right about something. Weren't you just saying something about bias?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2. There is an unquestioned acceptance that the Defendant is a musician. This has not been established beyond reasonable doubt and the possession of some degree of musical knowledge and/or ability should not lead to a presumption that the Defendant actually knows what he is talking about in regard to the specific topic under discussion. |
External sources which agree with me don't count, eh? But then, you generally don't accept any evidence which indicates I might be right about something. Weren't you just saying something about bias?
3. The Defendant admitted to an error in one of his posts in that he omitted the word "true". While he appears to have corrected this, the Defendant attributes it to a typographical error. This casual dismissal of his error would serve to raise some doubt as to the Defendantīs level of attachment to veracity in general.
Because as we all know, experts and knowledgeable people don't ever make typos...
Ever heard of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy?
QUOTE
This may seem a minor point but the Defendant has attempted similar tactics in wriggling out of previous erroneous posts.
No evidence whatsoever of this claim exists, because this is simply a bald-faced lie.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This may seem a minor point but the Defendant has attempted similar tactics in wriggling out of previous erroneous posts. |
No evidence whatsoever of this claim exists, because this is simply a bald-faced lie.
4. One of the Defendantīs counterclaims is that the Complainer is an abusive person. Any substance which might be attached to this allegation should be considered nullified by the abusive content of many of the Defendantīs posts.
ROFLMAO
QUOTE
5. The Court has also ruled that the Complainer has failed to demonstrate competence in the field of music. It is submitted that if lack of competence of a topic under discussion should be used as a factor in determining the outcome of a case, then the very future of the Forum would be placed at risk.
Indeed. However, you are ignoring (purposefully, I suspect) the fact that Liu's complaint hinges upon him knowing enough to determine whether or not I was correct. He never provided any third-party sources to evince his various claims about music.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 5. The Court has also ruled that the Complainer has failed to demonstrate competence in the field of music. It is submitted that if lack of competence of a topic under discussion should be used as a factor in determining the outcome of a case, then the very future of the Forum would be placed at risk. |
Indeed. However, you are ignoring (purposefully, I suspect) the fact that Liu's complaint hinges upon him knowing enough to determine whether or not I was correct. He never provided any third-party sources to evince his various claims about music.
This threat should be viewed in the same light as would a threat to National Security and it is urged that this element of the ruling should be tested for constitutionality.
I'm pretty sure the only rights we have on this forum are those rpenner and neutron choose to let us have. However, feel free to prove me wrong by linking me to a list of poster's rights...
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 16 2009, 06:07 PM)
Note, I will not pursue this matter any further. I simply wished to address this.... idiocy -for lack of a better word- one time.
Would you prefer that I complain about future actions? How could I possibly be specific about that? In fact, taken as a whole, this sentence makes no sense. A lack of specificity in complaints has nothing to do whatsoever with the date on which any offense occurred, beyond the fact that complaints about future actions would be by definition, unspecific.
Now that's ridiculous. Of course I assume his guilt. I've been presented with evidence of it for something like a year now, and I'm accusing him of it. If I were to asdsume his innocence, I'd be ignoring evidence and not accusing him.
This isn't a court of law. It's an arbitration.
External sources which agree with me don't count, eh? But then, you generally don't accept any evidence which indicates I might be right about something. Weren't you just saying something about bias?
Because as we all know, experts and knowledgeable people don't ever make typos...
Ever heard of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy?
No evidence whatsoever of this claim exists, because this is simply a bald-faced lie.
ROFLMAO
Indeed. However, you are ignoring (purposefully, I suspect) the fact that Liu's complaint hinges upon him knowing enough to determine whether or not I was correct. He never provided any third-party sources to evince his various claims about music.
I'm pretty sure the only rights we have on this forum are those rpenner and neutron choose to let us have. However, feel free to prove me wrong by linking me to a list of poster's rights...
Hi Molly,
There you go again - just wonīt read posts before you rush off to respond. This comment was addressed to RPīs adjudication of the complaint - not to the complaint itself.
all the best
E
Would you prefer that I complain about future actions? How could I possibly be specific about that? In fact, taken as a whole, this sentence makes no sense. A lack of specificity in complaints has nothing to do whatsoever with the date on which any offense occurred, beyond the fact that complaints about future actions would be by definition, unspecific.
Now that's ridiculous. Of course I assume his guilt. I've been presented with evidence of it for something like a year now, and I'm accusing him of it. If I were to asdsume his innocence, I'd be ignoring evidence and not accusing him.
This isn't a court of law. It's an arbitration.
External sources which agree with me don't count, eh? But then, you generally don't accept any evidence which indicates I might be right about something. Weren't you just saying something about bias?
Because as we all know, experts and knowledgeable people don't ever make typos...
Ever heard of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy?
No evidence whatsoever of this claim exists, because this is simply a bald-faced lie.
ROFLMAO
Indeed. However, you are ignoring (purposefully, I suspect) the fact that Liu's complaint hinges upon him knowing enough to determine whether or not I was correct. He never provided any third-party sources to evince his various claims about music.
I'm pretty sure the only rights we have on this forum are those rpenner and neutron choose to let us have. However, feel free to prove me wrong by linking me to a list of poster's rights...
Hi Molly,
There you go again - just wonīt read posts before you rush off to respond. This comment was addressed to RPīs adjudication of the complaint - not to the complaint itself.
all the best
E
Well, Lui's complaint against me was pretty similar to the one against MPants, but for what it's worth...
QUOTE (Lui+)
thedoc is stating that the formula Mpants gave - W H W W W W* H refers to a melodic minor, when in fact it doesn't, and never will do.
Correct, it does not refer to either the ascending or descending minors. However, I never claimed it was the formula for the ascending or descending minors - I claimed it referred to "merely" a melodic minor, a generic term, which (among more educated musicians, at least) can be also interpreted as the harmonic minor. In that particular context, the term "true melodic minor" is supposedly outdated, archaic - and that precisely is why the scale I and MPants gave is more generally known as the harmonic minor.
Correct, it does not refer to either the ascending or descending minors. However, I never claimed it was the formula for the ascending or descending minors - I claimed it referred to "merely" a melodic minor, a generic term, which (among more educated musicians, at least) can be also interpreted as the harmonic minor. In that particular context, the term "true melodic minor" is supposedly outdated, archaic - and that precisely is why the scale I and MPants gave is more generally known as the harmonic minor.
QUOTE (Lui+)
Then he waffles on, as if he knows what he is talking about...
In the very post you cite (link), I claimed music was not my strong point. As such, I have to rely on my own research and the claims of others, such as MPants. It is worth noting that I trust MPants much more than I do you, a poster who is a proven liar and far more duplicitous than you claim others are.
In the very post you cite (link), I claimed music was not my strong point. As such, I have to rely on my own research and the claims of others, such as MPants. It is worth noting that I trust MPants much more than I do you, a poster who is a proven liar and far more duplicitous than you claim others are.
QUOTE (Lui+)
Sorry thedoc, you are wrong, a descending melodic minor reverts back to natural minor, unless it is being used as a jazz minor, where it keeps the same formula both ascending and descending. Therefore Mpants and you are ALWAYS wrong in what you are saying.
Your arguments rests on the assumption that I was talking about the ascending and descending minors. I was not.
Finally, I'd like to file a cross-complaint against Lui/TobyNotToby for a number of offenses: baiting, lying, sockpuppetry, and generally being more of a pest than he claims other people - such as members of the Forum Mafia - are. In support of these claims, here are a few of Lui's posts from the very first page his posting history:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...50&#entry417041
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...50&#entry417031
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...35&#entry417005
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...35&#entry416929
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...45&#entry416626
And of course for sockpuppetry, there is the instance of him posting under the account of Boneidol on this very page. Not to mention that many of his previous accounts - Dibedy, Squeeze, marley, MickDerry, etc - share the exact same posting mannerisms.
Isn't it glaringly obvious from these posts how two-faced Lui is? He is a liar and an attention-seeker, evidenced by how many times he has stated his intention to leave only to return within a few hours. He is a nuisance, a fact many people agreed - and STILL agree - on. His posts are far more venomous than those of mine, MPants, occidental and in some cases even Geoff Mollusc's.
The only reason I'm typing this cross-complaint up is because he's still here, and he's going to keep coming back. Like MPants, I'd like to see both of Lui's remaining accounts - Boneidol and the temporarily suspended MickDerry - banned permanently and his IP address blocked.
Your arguments rests on the assumption that I was talking about the ascending and descending minors. I was not.
Finally, I'd like to file a cross-complaint against Lui/TobyNotToby for a number of offenses: baiting, lying, sockpuppetry, and generally being more of a pest than he claims other people - such as members of the Forum Mafia - are. In support of these claims, here are a few of Lui's posts from the very first page his posting history:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...50&#entry417041
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...50&#entry417031
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...35&#entry417005
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...35&#entry416929
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...45&#entry416626
And of course for sockpuppetry, there is the instance of him posting under the account of Boneidol on this very page. Not to mention that many of his previous accounts - Dibedy, Squeeze, marley, MickDerry, etc - share the exact same posting mannerisms.
Isn't it glaringly obvious from these posts how two-faced Lui is? He is a liar and an attention-seeker, evidenced by how many times he has stated his intention to leave only to return within a few hours. He is a nuisance, a fact many people agreed - and STILL agree - on. His posts are far more venomous than those of mine, MPants, occidental and in some cases even Geoff Mollusc's.
The only reason I'm typing this cross-complaint up is because he's still here, and he's going to keep coming back. Like MPants, I'd like to see both of Lui's remaining accounts - Boneidol and the temporarily suspended MickDerry - banned permanently and his IP address blocked.
I think nil's IP should be banned immediately for playing dress up and attack. A purely speculative question, given a relatively speculative reply, does not constitute this,
An extreme and instant Ad-hominem, very zealous, and pretty malicious intent, and is in-fact a straw-man.
I would question the "court,"
Who in-fact degraded the post, and on what grounds?
ad hominem
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
Straw-man
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1] [2]
Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one of two other statements - both being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes both of these weaker propositions, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument.
QUOTE
nil Posted: Today at 7:50 PM Report this post · Quote
Newbie
Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: Today at 6:26 PM
Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0
View/Add Feedback New
Warn: (0%)
"People over and over throughout man's existence on this planet have raged revolutions with weapons, but rarely has it ever happened with the most potent of them all, the mind."
Meem.
this quote alone (which you seem to think fits quite nicely just below Einstein and right above Plato) lets me understand just how full of crap you are, since all revolutions were raged with the mind with the appropriate weapons made possible by of course... the mind, but your post also speaks volumes.
I was really wanting someone who actually has a basic understanding of relativity and physics in general to provide some input, if i wanted complete nonsense i know exactly where to look.
I'm really glad you felt the need to degrade this post within 5 minutes of me posting it, so i thank you not only for me but for everyone who your words of unparalleled wisdom have touched today, you great great humble philosopher.
Newbie
Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: Today at 6:26 PM
Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0
View/Add Feedback New
Warn: (0%)
"People over and over throughout man's existence on this planet have raged revolutions with weapons, but rarely has it ever happened with the most potent of them all, the mind."
Meem.
this quote alone (which you seem to think fits quite nicely just below Einstein and right above Plato) lets me understand just how full of crap you are, since all revolutions were raged with the mind with the appropriate weapons made possible by of course... the mind, but your post also speaks volumes.
I was really wanting someone who actually has a basic understanding of relativity and physics in general to provide some input, if i wanted complete nonsense i know exactly where to look.
I'm really glad you felt the need to degrade this post within 5 minutes of me posting it, so i thank you not only for me but for everyone who your words of unparalleled wisdom have touched today, you great great humble philosopher.
An extreme and instant Ad-hominem, very zealous, and pretty malicious intent, and is in-fact a straw-man.
I would question the "court,"
Who in-fact degraded the post, and on what grounds?
ad hominem
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
Straw-man
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1] [2]
Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one of two other statements - both being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes both of these weaker propositions, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument.
OK... I am going to add a name that should have been on here first.
Ubavontuba.
Seriously... has he had any actual science content ever? Certainly not since I have been here.
All it is now is him claiming to have won every argument and that everyone agrees with him, whether they know it or not. It's an endless and pointless effort by someone who should have been booted eons ago as an alarmist troll.
I submit as evidence...
From his post in 2006
It is here... Micro black hole thread
Seriously...
I don't have a problem with someone discussing the dangers of the LHC, if such dangers actually exist. However, I don't see that anything is served by having the same discussion over and over with someone who's agenda is simply to alarm people for his own benefit.
What say you Rpenner?
Do I have a case?
Ubavontuba.
Seriously... has he had any actual science content ever? Certainly not since I have been here.
All it is now is him claiming to have won every argument and that everyone agrees with him, whether they know it or not. It's an endless and pointless effort by someone who should have been booted eons ago as an alarmist troll.
I submit as evidence...
From his post in 2006
QUOTE
I was referring to preventing a delay in the anti-blackhole movement, not in the LHC experiment.
The general public doesn't need to understand the technicalities. They need but be alarmed.
The general public doesn't need to understand the technicalities. They need but be alarmed.
It is here... Micro black hole thread
Seriously...
I don't have a problem with someone discussing the dangers of the LHC, if such dangers actually exist. However, I don't see that anything is served by having the same discussion over and over with someone who's agenda is simply to alarm people for his own benefit.
What say you Rpenner?
Do I have a case?
Though Edward has once again stuck his foot in his mouth, I'm not going to explain how because I have already said I wouldn't.
This post is to join in Rob's complaint against Ubavontuba. If more evidence is required, I will assist in gathering it.
This post is to join in Rob's complaint against Ubavontuba. If more evidence is required, I will assist in gathering it.
Well, this isn't really the place to gather evidence, but make a case. I don't think that RobDegraves presented the required elements in the above post, but I haven't examined it closely yet.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 17 2009, 12:16 PM)
Though Edward has once again stuck his foot in his mouth, I'm not going to explain how because I have already said I wouldn't.
This post is to join in Rob's complaint against Ubavontuba. If more evidence is required, I will assist in gathering it.
Hi Molly,
Are you aiming to be Chief Prosecutor or Grand Inquisitor ?
Have a nice day
E
This post is to join in Rob's complaint against Ubavontuba. If more evidence is required, I will assist in gathering it.
Hi Molly,
Are you aiming to be Chief Prosecutor or Grand Inquisitor ?
Have a nice day
E
QUOTE (rpenner+Jun 17 2009, 07:49 AM)
Well, this isn't really the place to gather evidence, but make a case. I don't think that RobDegraves presented the required elements in the above post, but I haven't examined it closely yet.
Well, I would of course be gathering it in other threads. What I meant was that I will present here more evidence to support his complaint, if required. Judging by your comments, it seems more evidence may be required. Shall I begin presenting, or should I allow Rob to present all evidence?
Well, I would of course be gathering it in other threads. What I meant was that I will present here more evidence to support his complaint, if required. Judging by your comments, it seems more evidence may be required. Shall I begin presenting, or should I allow Rob to present all evidence?
Puppetry is a form of theatre or performance which involves the manipulation of puppets. It is very ancient, and is believed to have originated 30,000 years BC. [1] Puppetry takes many forms but they all share the process of animating inanimate performing objects. Puppetry is used in almost all human societies both as an entertainment in performance and ceremonially in rituals and celebrations such as carnival.[2]
Most puppetry involves storytelling. The impact of puppetry depends on the process of transformation of puppets, which has much in common with magic and with play.
(and in court)
Most puppetry involves storytelling. The impact of puppetry depends on the process of transformation of puppets, which has much in common with magic and with play.
(and in court)
Meem
I think you might have actually found a typo in Wikipedia. I do not think that puppets were used 30 thousand years ago.... a time where mammoths were around and neanderthals were still around. From what I can see it's a typo and it got repeated on a few other sites that use Wiki as a source. I could be wrong of course but I doubt it.
Mjolnirpants
Please feel free to jump in with evidence on Uba... it's very easy and I will provide some as well. I am just a bit busy right now.
I think you might have actually found a typo in Wikipedia. I do not think that puppets were used 30 thousand years ago.... a time where mammoths were around and neanderthals were still around. From what I can see it's a typo and it got repeated on a few other sites that use Wiki as a source. I could be wrong of course but I doubt it.
Mjolnirpants
Please feel free to jump in with evidence on Uba... it's very easy and I will provide some as well. I am just a bit busy right now.
First post i made was quickly thought out, and left out many details as to what you require for a valid case. Unfortunately i could not find a way to edit it, and have recently gotten together with another person to pool evidence and file a complaint on behalf of the two of us, against Magpies. Would it be possible to have my previous post deleted, or amended to include this one?
1) Magpies has no intention but to disrupt legitimate discussion with inane, ignorant, conspiratorial comments. He claims to think that he is all-powerful and that he can break the laws of physics with his mind. He has disdain for all scientific knowledge, claiming that all scientists are part of a vast conspiracy to silence the "truth." In reality, he just doesn't like the fact that knowledge isn't as easily attained as he would like. His comments sidetrack serious discussions with trivial "doubts" about established scientific facts and theories. ( Thank you to the one who sent me this complaint, he did not specify if he would like to be named, so i shall keep him anonymous unless he would like to come forward or rpenner would like to know. )
evidence to this claim:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25943
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26005
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26009
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25949
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26087
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26093
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25645
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25602
1) Magpies has no intention but to disrupt legitimate discussion with inane, ignorant, conspiratorial comments. He claims to think that he is all-powerful and that he can break the laws of physics with his mind. He has disdain for all scientific knowledge, claiming that all scientists are part of a vast conspiracy to silence the "truth." In reality, he just doesn't like the fact that knowledge isn't as easily attained as he would like. His comments sidetrack serious discussions with trivial "doubts" about established scientific facts and theories. ( Thank you to the one who sent me this complaint, he did not specify if he would like to be named, so i shall keep him anonymous unless he would like to come forward or rpenner would like to know. )
evidence to this claim:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25943
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26005
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26009
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25949
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26087
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26093
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25645
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25602
I concur with Michael J. Magpies has done nothing but bash the whole profession of science by labeling it a conspiracy. I have not seen one example where he has presented a relevant, coherent, scientifically accurate statement.
1. Add my name to the complaint against magpies.
2. I want to file a complaint against NopEda, for posting utterly ridiculous BS and calling it rational discussion. I'd like to see him banned for it. The evidence I offer is basically every post he's ever made, but specifically every post he's made in the following threads, with a maximum of 1 or 2 exceptions to each:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25632
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25718
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25773
2. I want to file a complaint against NopEda, for posting utterly ridiculous BS and calling it rational discussion. I'd like to see him banned for it. The evidence I offer is basically every post he's ever made, but specifically every post he's made in the following threads, with a maximum of 1 or 2 exceptions to each:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25632
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25718
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25773
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 youll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.