QUOTE
Speeches—Anti-Bullying
'The Flaming Internet ' 26.6.07
CWO Forum on Cyberbullying, The House Of Commons
Firstly I’d like to thank everyone at the Conservative Women’s Organisation—and Fiona Hodgson in particular—for organising this panel. Cyber bullying is a growing problem which possibly—because of meetings like this one—we can do something about.
Bullying is such an important issue—to be kept to the forefront of debate—because the effects of it are so disturbing. We now know systematic bullying can cause long term psychological damage to victims—whatever their culture—whatever background—and this is a worldwide observation.
We also know that victims of bullying have taken their lives. The numbers of young people committing suicide related to bullying is alarming. In this country alone as many as 25 a year if not more—we can’t always pinpoint the exact reason for juvenile death—continue to do so. Suicide attempts related to bullying are incalculable, but certainly too high to be acceptable.
Only the more dramatic stories of young people dying reach the papers—in Japan last November five children killed themselves within the space of four days because of bullying at school. As a matter of fact it was the poignant case of the suicides of three boys in Norway in short succession of one another in the 70s that led in 1983 to first anti-bullying prevention scheme which was found to be 50 percent effective.
Also, victims of bullying have taken other peoples lives—in the US the Columbine High School Massacre of 1999 in which 13 died was possibly bullying related as could have been the massacre of 32 at Virginia Tech this past April.
The problem we face is that bullying is an ever moving target. As a subject it was first put on the map in the novel Tom Browns School Days—the traditional view then was that it was mostly physical. But bullying has changed since 1857—along with the shifts in society. It is now a different form of aggression; it’s more insidious and more psychologically manipulative. And, as it changes, the advice given to victims—or the way we counteract it— has also to change.
The latest trend is cyberbullying. For those who don’t know the colourful terminology—‘flaming’ is sending cyber abuse, or ‘beign flamed’ is receiving it. The term cyber-bashing is probably quite clear. Hence the title of my slide presentation ‘The Flaming Internet’.
Cyber bullying is defined as willful and repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text or the internet’. It ranges from physical threats—say children groomed by paedophiles—to something less likely to be labelled bullying but more and more on the increase—a new form of humiliation game or ritual played out over the net.
http : // www . louiseburfittdons . com / anti-bullying_speeches.htm
'The Flaming Internet ' 26.6.07
CWO Forum on Cyberbullying, The House Of Commons
Firstly I’d like to thank everyone at the Conservative Women’s Organisation—and Fiona Hodgson in particular—for organising this panel. Cyber bullying is a growing problem which possibly—because of meetings like this one—we can do something about.
Bullying is such an important issue—to be kept to the forefront of debate—because the effects of it are so disturbing. We now know systematic bullying can cause long term psychological damage to victims—whatever their culture—whatever background—and this is a worldwide observation.
We also know that victims of bullying have taken their lives. The numbers of young people committing suicide related to bullying is alarming. In this country alone as many as 25 a year if not more—we can’t always pinpoint the exact reason for juvenile death—continue to do so. Suicide attempts related to bullying are incalculable, but certainly too high to be acceptable.
Only the more dramatic stories of young people dying reach the papers—in Japan last November five children killed themselves within the space of four days because of bullying at school. As a matter of fact it was the poignant case of the suicides of three boys in Norway in short succession of one another in the 70s that led in 1983 to first anti-bullying prevention scheme which was found to be 50 percent effective.
Also, victims of bullying have taken other peoples lives—in the US the Columbine High School Massacre of 1999 in which 13 died was possibly bullying related as could have been the massacre of 32 at Virginia Tech this past April.
The problem we face is that bullying is an ever moving target. As a subject it was first put on the map in the novel Tom Browns School Days—the traditional view then was that it was mostly physical. But bullying has changed since 1857—along with the shifts in society. It is now a different form of aggression; it’s more insidious and more psychologically manipulative. And, as it changes, the advice given to victims—or the way we counteract it— has also to change.
The latest trend is cyberbullying. For those who don’t know the colourful terminology—‘flaming’ is sending cyber abuse, or ‘beign flamed’ is receiving it. The term cyber-bashing is probably quite clear. Hence the title of my slide presentation ‘The Flaming Internet’.
Cyber bullying is defined as willful and repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text or the internet’. It ranges from physical threats—say children groomed by paedophiles—to something less likely to be labelled bullying but more and more on the increase—a new form of humiliation game or ritual played out over the net.
http : // www . louiseburfittdons . com / anti-bullying_speeches.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Speeches—Anti-Bullying 'The Flaming Internet ' 26.6.07 CWO Forum on Cyberbullying, The House Of Commons Firstly I’d like to thank everyone at the Conservative Women’s Organisation—and Fiona Hodgson in particular—for organising this panel. Cyber bullying is a growing problem which possibly—because of meetings like this one—we can do something about. Bullying is such an important issue—to be kept to the forefront of debate—because the effects of it are so disturbing. We now know systematic bullying can cause long term psychological damage to victims—whatever their culture—whatever background—and this is a worldwide observation. We also know that victims of bullying have taken their lives. The numbers of young people committing suicide related to bullying is alarming. In this country alone as many as 25 a year if not more—we can’t always pinpoint the exact reason for juvenile death—continue to do so. Suicide attempts related to bullying are incalculable, but certainly too high to be acceptable. Only the more dramatic stories of young people dying reach the papers—in Japan last November five children killed themselves within the space of four days because of bullying at school. As a matter of fact it was the poignant case of the suicides of three boys in Norway in short succession of one another in the 70s that led in 1983 to first anti-bullying prevention scheme which was found to be 50 percent effective. Also, victims of bullying have taken other peoples lives—in the US the Columbine High School Massacre of 1999 in which 13 died was possibly bullying related as could have been the massacre of 32 at Virginia Tech this past April. The problem we face is that bullying is an ever moving target. As a subject it was first put on the map in the novel Tom Browns School Days—the traditional view then was that it was mostly physical. But bullying has changed since 1857—along with the shifts in society. It is now a different form of aggression; it’s more insidious and more psychologically manipulative. And, as it changes, the advice given to victims—or the way we counteract it— has also to change. The latest trend is cyberbullying. For those who don’t know the colourful terminology—‘flaming’ is sending cyber abuse, or ‘beign flamed’ is receiving it. The term cyber-bashing is probably quite clear. Hence the title of my slide presentation ‘The Flaming Internet’. Cyber bullying is defined as willful and repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text or the internet’. It ranges from physical threats—say children groomed by paedophiles—to something less likely to be labelled bullying but more and more on the increase—a new form of humiliation game or ritual played out over the net. http : // www . louiseburfittdons . com / anti-bullying_speeches.htm |
Warning on dangers of name-calling
A MERSEYSIDE student whose anti-bullying work was saluted by royal princes William and Harry, will warn pupils name calling can have fatal consequences.
Katarina Constantinou from Crosby will address an Anti-Bullying Alliance conference at the Thorn Cross young offenders institution, Warrington, on Wednesday.
After being taunted about her curly hair Katarina set up a buddy scheme in which older pupils host drop-in sessions for younger bully victims at her former school, Chesterfield High, in Crosby.
The 20-year-old was awarded a Princess Diana Memorial Award in 2005 in recognition of her efforts, and she was invited to meet the royal brothers before their mother’s tribute concert in July.
At the conference 14 to 18-year-olds representing Merseyside and north west councils will share ideas on cyber bullying and peer mentoring.
The Liverpool John Moores sociology and politics student said: “Something as simple as name calling could have fatal consequences.”
Her warning comes after almost 20 bully victims committed suicide last year.
http : // www . liverpoolecho . co . uk / liverpool-news/local-news/2007/11/19/pupils-to-hear-harrowing-transcripts-to-hammer-home-anti-bullying-message-100252-20127384/
QUOTE
http : // www . makeadifferenceforkids . org/activities.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| http : // www . makeadifferenceforkids . org/activities.html |
All message boards run by private individuals are hosted by firms and you can often find an address to complain to in the 'help' section of the board. In our experience firms usually act swiftly to shut down the board because allowing abuse to be posted is against their terms and conditions.
Abuse isn't secret
Even if the people posting this abuse do so using a false name, they can still be traced because the firm which hosts the website will keep logs which detail where uploads have been made from. You and your parents can't access this information but the police can.
http : // www . bullying . co . uk/young_people/cyberbullying/abusivewebsites.aspx
excellent
But it is a moderation problem... that few moderators acknowledge
certainly they do nothing about this problem
In fact on many of the forums I have participated on, the moderators are the bullies and actually also back up the bullies
so much so that if a poster complains then that poster is moderated or banned... and the bullies go free to scoff about their victim
The Self serve science forum is one such den of cyber bullies..... only if you know more than the mods... This forum actually exports their bullyboys, so cross forum stalking is very common.
LOL
as with this forum, many idiots when they do not understand the science they resort to slander and bullyboy tactics.
So who ya gonna call ?.... no one!!
so you have to reflect them off a mirror..... but meanwhile the thread is trashed and serious posters are disenchanted.
Until the mods wake up and do their job..... nothing can work
and this goes for every science forum on the net... well at least those frequented by non-scientists.
But it is a moderation problem... that few moderators acknowledge
certainly they do nothing about this problem
In fact on many of the forums I have participated on, the moderators are the bullies and actually also back up the bullies
so much so that if a poster complains then that poster is moderated or banned... and the bullies go free to scoff about their victim
The Self serve science forum is one such den of cyber bullies..... only if you know more than the mods... This forum actually exports their bullyboys, so cross forum stalking is very common.
LOL
as with this forum, many idiots when they do not understand the science they resort to slander and bullyboy tactics.
So who ya gonna call ?.... no one!!
so you have to reflect them off a mirror..... but meanwhile the thread is trashed and serious posters are disenchanted.
Until the mods wake up and do their job..... nothing can work
and this goes for every science forum on the net... well at least those frequented by non-scientists.
This seems the only relevant quote to me, the rest is just appealing to emotion and not applicable to any debate on the matter.
The important term, in my opinion, is 'willful (sic) and repeated harm'. It is stated that this ranges from physical threats (certainly a rarety but not unseen on this board) to some other undefined less serious activity.
In my opinion, all the OP serves to do is define that repeated physical threats are classed as cyber bullying. This was never in question.
QUOTE
Cyber bullying is defined as willful and repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text or the internet’. It ranges from physical threats—say children groomed by paedophiles—to something less likely to be labelled bullying but more and more on the increase—a new form of humiliation game or ritual played out over the net.
The important term, in my opinion, is 'willful (sic) and repeated harm'. It is stated that this ranges from physical threats (certainly a rarety but not unseen on this board) to some other undefined less serious activity.
In my opinion, all the OP serves to do is define that repeated physical threats are classed as cyber bullying. This was never in question.
This is quite telling.
Yep.
QUOTE
All message boards run by private individuals are hosted by firms and you can often find an address to complain to in the 'help' section of the board. In our experience firms usually act swiftly to shut down the board because allowing abuse to be posted is against their terms and conditions.
Yep.
I was gonna post a list o the insults ole bonehead here has hurled in his brief time at this forum, but after only 2 pages o his postin history I'd collected so many that I can't post em all. So I'm not gonna do it.
Suffice it to say, one o the most abusive members o this forum is the very one whinin almost nonstop about the abuse at this forum.
Suffice it to say, one o the most abusive members o this forum is the very one whinin almost nonstop about the abuse at this forum.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 30 2008, 06:54 PM)
I was gonna post a list o the insults ole bonehead here has hurled in his brief time at this forum, but after only 2 pages o his postin history I'd collected so many that I can't post em all. So I'm not gonna do it.
Suffice it to say, one o the most abusive members o this forum is the very one whinin almost nonstop about the abuse at this forum.
You don't like my HARSH approach toward bullies? Lots of real examples I've collected from real bullies son, which I will not post here, but will send to those that will demand Physorg gets its act together. They may even ban me eh?
Suffice it to say, one o the most abusive members o this forum is the very one whinin almost nonstop about the abuse at this forum.
You don't like my HARSH approach toward bullies? Lots of real examples I've collected from real bullies son, which I will not post here, but will send to those that will demand Physorg gets its act together. They may even ban me eh?
Of course he has. THe loser is merely a sock-puppet of someone we have driven off in shame. For some pathetic reason he blames us as the reason theat he was banned from here. I can't be bothered trying to guess what his ID was when he was banned for trolling, there have been so many of the losers.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Jul 31 2008, 08:09 AM)
You don't like my HARSH approach toward bullies? Lots of real examples I've collected from real bullies son, which I will not post here, but will send to those that will demand Physorg gets its act together. They may even ban me eh?
So...
By your own admission, not only did you come here with a predetermined agenda and a biased view point, you have absolutely no intention of allowing those you're accusing of bullying any opportunity to explain their actions.
And you claim you're not biased.
So...
By your own admission, not only did you come here with a predetermined agenda and a biased view point, you have absolutely no intention of allowing those you're accusing of bullying any opportunity to explain their actions.
And you claim you're not biased.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 30 2008, 08:22 PM)
So...
By your own admission, not only did you come here with a predetermined agenda and a biased view point, you have absolutely no intention of allowing those you're accusing of bullying any opportunity to explain their actions.
And you claim you're not biased.
Everything is explaining itself perfectly.
By your own admission, not only did you come here with a predetermined agenda and a biased view point, you have absolutely no intention of allowing those you're accusing of bullying any opportunity to explain their actions.
And you claim you're not biased.
Everything is explaining itself perfectly.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Jul 30 2008, 08:09 PM)
You don't like my HARSH approach toward bullies?
It's not that which I take issue with, per se.
It's the fact that ya engage in bullyish behavior to supposedly run off the bullies.
It's the fact that ya lie with no regard fer integrity.
It's the fact that ya avoid answerin questions which might reflect bad on ya if ya answered honestly.
It's the fact that ya admitted to bein Squish, then later denied it an threw up the most transparently lame excuse fer sayin what ya did when I pointed out yer admission.
It's the fact that ya respond to valid points with insults.
It's the fact that yer accusations o bullyin are completely an utterly unfounded.
If there were real bullies here, the only way to respond to em would be harshly.
However, this response would o neccesity include logical responses, valid points, consistant logic an honesty.
So no, it's not "yer harsh approach to bullies" that I take issue with. It's the simple fact that ya lie, insult an degrade those whom you label as bullies without ever botherin to do a damn thing to justify yerself. Even if we were bullies, yer method o respondin to our bullyin is no better than the bullyin itself, an is in fact-all things considered- worse, in that we at least provide justification fer our actions. We can prove that WSM is bunk. We can prove that DavidD is an idiot. You can't prove we're jack*sses or liar or hypocrites or even bullies.
Liar.
Ya ain't got jack to back up yer claims. I know this cause ya ain't posted jack to back up yer claims. I know ya would post it, because ya spend so much time defendin yer claims an attackin us.
Liar.
Ya ain't got jack to back up yer claims. I know this cause ya ain't posted jack to back up yer claims. I know ya would post it, because ya spend so much time defendin yer claims an attackin us.
They may even ban me eh?
Physorg could only be so lucky...
You mean, I noted that you were BDW. You then came back and called me a former member, whom you named Squish. I wrote back "and so it came to pass , you have to guess and I know". And from that you choose to see this as a confession. And I replied that it was no such thing, but the simple fact you made an accusation based on a guess, and I know you are this BDW. And I also later explained that I didn't give a damn. It was something to note that's all. But from what ensued, it is slightly more than a "give no damn about it", because once again the liar would like to be seen as the person telling the truth.
This leads to one of your other "points" in your latest list. The fact that you say I am a liar with no integrity. Really, what planet are you from then?
Then you say my behaviour is bullish. I will put it to the source I have found that it is merely being interpeted that way by a collection of voices at Physorg that seem to find that kinda comeback a convenient way to not have to take on the fact that they have continually abused individuals.
You then go on about my "avoiding" answering questions, because it would reflect on me if I answered honestly. Really , what planet are you from? Your basis for engaging with me is built on a fundamental lie. When liars pretend they are speaking the truth I can react to it a number of ways. When the Apostles here don't seem to possess this kind of understanding, it makes the whole proceeding pointless. The next step is to take it above their heads, to be decided for them, if they haven't got the courtesy to realize it and attempt to change it as a group. You'll find this is what is going to have to happen. Try to get that one clear. you are saying that you don't have to answer the fact that you are a sockpuppet, and that that somehow isn't telling a lie, when it is clearly evident you did already admit it, in a post that has obviously conveniently dissapeared. And by even more use of your logic you then say I was the one that admitted something I cearly didn't admit. Is this kind fo sense a bit too much for you?
And in true Physorg fashion, everything has evolved the way one would expect from the mentality that dominates here. I'm afraid that isn't me bullying you chaps. It's the sad truth about YOU, not me..
This takes us to your next point about my "accusation of bullying being unfounded" really, what planet are you from? The decent people on this planet will have things to say about this point of yours.
I used the word "harsh" because you admitted you are a harsh kind of debater.
And your next point continues in the "honesty" vein, the "logic" vein etc. Really, what planet are you from???? Don't you get it?
Next you say you take offence at my telling lies. What planet are you from? Unless this can be interpreted as self offence on your part. And it's an insult to have to be subject to your logic and insults at the moment. Don't you dig? I doubt you do.
And , please spare me this "we at least provide justification for our actions, but you are a worse type of bully". You've missed the point somewhere along the line. There is no recognized justification for online abuse and bullying.
Mpants, your algebra for dummies hasn't proved WSM is bunk. Your next point "we can prove DavidD is an idiot" is again rather typical. Especially since one so dishonest about who he is as you is saying it.
Your last point in that paragraph does remain to be seen. You are acting very confident about one not being able to prove "we" are bullies and abusive and "jackasses" or liars. You will find that a large proportion of society will have a different view. I'm not persuing the individual cases. I've realized that those responsible, ultimately are the people that run physorg, and they should clean up this act.
You mean, I noted that you were BDW. You then came back and called me a former member, whom you named Squish. I wrote back "and so it came to pass , you have to guess and I know". And from that you choose to see this as a confession. And I replied that it was no such thing, but the simple fact you made an accusation based on a guess, and I know you are this BDW. And I also later explained that I didn't give a damn. It was something to note that's all. But from what ensued, it is slightly more than a "give no damn about it", because once again the liar would like to be seen as the person telling the truth.
This leads to one of your other "points" in your latest list. The fact that you say I am a liar with no integrity. Really, what planet are you from then?
Then you say my behaviour is bullish. I will put it to the source I have found that it is merely being interpeted that way by a collection of voices at Physorg that seem to find that kinda comeback a convenient way to not have to take on the fact that they have continually abused individuals.
You then go on about my "avoiding" answering questions, because it would reflect on me if I answered honestly. Really , what planet are you from? Your basis for engaging with me is built on a fundamental lie. When liars pretend they are speaking the truth I can react to it a number of ways. When the Apostles here don't seem to possess this kind of understanding, it makes the whole proceeding pointless. The next step is to take it above their heads, to be decided for them, if they haven't got the courtesy to realize it and attempt to change it as a group. You'll find this is what is going to have to happen. Try to get that one clear. you are saying that you don't have to answer the fact that you are a sockpuppet, and that that somehow isn't telling a lie, when it is clearly evident you did already admit it, in a post that has obviously conveniently dissapeared. And by even more use of your logic you then say I was the one that admitted something I cearly didn't admit. Is this kind fo sense a bit too much for you?
And in true Physorg fashion, everything has evolved the way one would expect from the mentality that dominates here. I'm afraid that isn't me bullying you chaps. It's the sad truth about YOU, not me..
This takes us to your next point about my "accusation of bullying being unfounded" really, what planet are you from? The decent people on this planet will have things to say about this point of yours.
I used the word "harsh" because you admitted you are a harsh kind of debater.
And your next point continues in the "honesty" vein, the "logic" vein etc. Really, what planet are you from???? Don't you get it?
Next you say you take offence at my telling lies. What planet are you from? Unless this can be interpreted as self offence on your part. And it's an insult to have to be subject to your logic and insults at the moment. Don't you dig? I doubt you do.
And , please spare me this "we at least provide justification for our actions, but you are a worse type of bully". You've missed the point somewhere along the line. There is no recognized justification for online abuse and bullying.
Mpants, your algebra for dummies hasn't proved WSM is bunk. Your next point "we can prove DavidD is an idiot" is again rather typical. Especially since one so dishonest about who he is as you is saying it.
Your last point in that paragraph does remain to be seen. You are acting very confident about one not being able to prove "we" are bullies and abusive and "jackasses" or liars. You will find that a large proportion of society will have a different view. I'm not persuing the individual cases. I've realized that those responsible, ultimately are the people that run physorg, and they should clean up this act.
Liar.
Ya ain't got jack to back up yer claims. I know this cause ya ain't posted jack to back up yer claims. I know ya would post it, because ya spend so much time defendin yer claims an attackin us.
You don't know anything about what you said you know there.
You attemting to confuse the issue by bringing in a kind of sockpuppet identity of your own is typical of what happens here.
What behavior have you outlined that is actually going to be worth a dime to anyone that comes here and sees for themselves what has accrued? On that note, I'm not interested in any more debate with you. You may feel need to respond. I've more or less said what I have to say. Don't expect any more attempted answers.
It's not that which I take issue with, per se.
It's the fact that ya engage in bullyish behavior to supposedly run off the bullies.
It's the fact that ya lie with no regard fer integrity.
It's the fact that ya avoid answerin questions which might reflect bad on ya if ya answered honestly.
It's the fact that ya admitted to bein Squish, then later denied it an threw up the most transparently lame excuse fer sayin what ya did when I pointed out yer admission.
It's the fact that ya respond to valid points with insults.
It's the fact that yer accusations o bullyin are completely an utterly unfounded.
If there were real bullies here, the only way to respond to em would be harshly.
However, this response would o neccesity include logical responses, valid points, consistant logic an honesty.
So no, it's not "yer harsh approach to bullies" that I take issue with. It's the simple fact that ya lie, insult an degrade those whom you label as bullies without ever botherin to do a damn thing to justify yerself. Even if we were bullies, yer method o respondin to our bullyin is no better than the bullyin itself, an is in fact-all things considered- worse, in that we at least provide justification fer our actions. We can prove that WSM is bunk. We can prove that DavidD is an idiot. You can't prove we're jack*sses or liar or hypocrites or even bullies.
QUOTE
Lots of real examples I've collected from real bullies son, which I will not post here, but will send to those that will demand Physorg gets its act together.
Liar.
Ya ain't got jack to back up yer claims. I know this cause ya ain't posted jack to back up yer claims. I know ya would post it, because ya spend so much time defendin yer claims an attackin us.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Lots of real examples I've collected from real bullies son, which I will not post here, but will send to those that will demand Physorg gets its act together. |
Liar.
Ya ain't got jack to back up yer claims. I know this cause ya ain't posted jack to back up yer claims. I know ya would post it, because ya spend so much time defendin yer claims an attackin us.
They may even ban me eh?
Physorg could only be so lucky...
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 30 2008, 08:36 PM)
It's not that which I take issue with, per se.
It's the fact that ya engage in bullyish behavior to supposedly run off the bullies.
It's the fact that ya lie with no regard fer integrity.
It's the fact that ya avoid answerin questions which might reflect bad on ya if ya answered honestly.
It's the fact that ya admitted to bein Squish, then later denied it an threw up the most transparently lame excuse fer sayin what ya did when I pointed out yer admission.
It's the fact that ya respond to valid points with insults.
It's the fact that yer accusations o bullyin are completely an utterly unfounded.
If there were real bullies here, the only way to respond to em would be harshly.
However, this response would o neccesity include logical responses, valid points, consistant logic an honesty.
So no, it's not "yer harsh approach to bullies" that I take issue with. It's the simple fact that ya lie, insult an degrade those whom you label as bullies without ever botherin to do a damn thing to justify yerself. Even if we were bullies, yer method o respondin to our bullyin is no better than the bullyin itself, an is in fact-all things considered- worse, in that we at least provide justification fer our actions. We can prove that WSM is bunk. We can prove that DavidD is an idiot. You can't prove we're jack*sses or liar or hypocrites or even bullies.
Liar.
Ya ain't got jack to back up yer claims. I know this cause ya ain't posted jack to back up yer claims. I know ya would post it, because ya spend so much time defendin yer claims an attackin us.
Physorg could only be so lucky...
The fact that I never admitted to being this Squish falsifies your whole wasted post.
Coming from Mr OJ Pants , it is hilarious anyway.
And to NOM I'd say that former member or new member is beside the point at a place like this. Former members of a certain ilk will always be food for the likes of you. The Physorg Apostles find it hard to see such a statement as true. They seem to let so much of what they say they clearly see in me go. That's why I'm not going to drop this now.
Places like this slowly lose the decent element, until one is left with predominantly the hard core reason for its dwindling. One little push and it will all be over.
It's the fact that ya engage in bullyish behavior to supposedly run off the bullies.
It's the fact that ya lie with no regard fer integrity.
It's the fact that ya avoid answerin questions which might reflect bad on ya if ya answered honestly.
It's the fact that ya admitted to bein Squish, then later denied it an threw up the most transparently lame excuse fer sayin what ya did when I pointed out yer admission.
It's the fact that ya respond to valid points with insults.
It's the fact that yer accusations o bullyin are completely an utterly unfounded.
If there were real bullies here, the only way to respond to em would be harshly.
However, this response would o neccesity include logical responses, valid points, consistant logic an honesty.
So no, it's not "yer harsh approach to bullies" that I take issue with. It's the simple fact that ya lie, insult an degrade those whom you label as bullies without ever botherin to do a damn thing to justify yerself. Even if we were bullies, yer method o respondin to our bullyin is no better than the bullyin itself, an is in fact-all things considered- worse, in that we at least provide justification fer our actions. We can prove that WSM is bunk. We can prove that DavidD is an idiot. You can't prove we're jack*sses or liar or hypocrites or even bullies.
Liar.
Ya ain't got jack to back up yer claims. I know this cause ya ain't posted jack to back up yer claims. I know ya would post it, because ya spend so much time defendin yer claims an attackin us.
Physorg could only be so lucky...
The fact that I never admitted to being this Squish falsifies your whole wasted post.
Coming from Mr OJ Pants , it is hilarious anyway.
And to NOM I'd say that former member or new member is beside the point at a place like this. Former members of a certain ilk will always be food for the likes of you. The Physorg Apostles find it hard to see such a statement as true. They seem to let so much of what they say they clearly see in me go. That's why I'm not going to drop this now.
Places like this slowly lose the decent element, until one is left with predominantly the hard core reason for its dwindling. One little push and it will all be over.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Jul 30 2008, 08:47 PM)
The fact that I never admitted to being this Squish falsifies your whole wasted post.
Coming from Mr OJ Pants , it is hilarious anyway.
No, it doesn't. It don't address the followin:
It don't invalidate my point about yer admission, either. Why? Cause it's not true, as we both know. Yer explaination was paper-thin, the sort o explaination which someone might come up with on the spot to explain behavior which would otherwise seem wrong, not the sort o explaination which someone might offer when accused o that which he never did.
However, if ya decide to hold yerself to any standards whatsoever, feel free to try an show how you not admittin to bein Squish has any bearin whatsoever on the many many examples o the behavior I outlined above.
Coming from Mr OJ Pants , it is hilarious anyway.
No, it doesn't. It don't address the followin:
QUOTE
It's the fact that ya engage in bullyish behavior to supposedly run off the bullies.
It's the fact that ya lie with no regard fer integrity.
It's the fact that ya avoid answerin questions which might reflect bad on ya if ya answered honestly.
...
It's the fact that ya respond to valid points with insults.
It's the fact that yer accusations o bullyin are completely an utterly unfounded.
If there were real bullies here, the only way to respond to em would be harshly.
However, this response would o neccesity include logical responses, valid points, consistant logic an honesty.
So no, it's not "yer harsh approach to bullies" that I take issue with. It's the simple fact that ya lie, insult an degrade those whom you label as bullies without ever botherin to do a damn thing to justify yerself. Even if we were bullies, yer method o respondin to our bullyin is no better than the bullyin itself, an is in fact-all things considered- worse, in that we at least provide justification fer our actions. We can prove that WSM is bunk. We can prove that DavidD is an idiot. You can't prove we're jack*sses or liar or hypocrites or even bullies.
Liar.
Ya ain't got jack to back up yer claims. I know this cause ya ain't posted jack to back up yer claims. I know ya would post it, because ya spend so much time defendin yer claims an attackin us.
Physorg could only be so lucky...
It's the fact that ya lie with no regard fer integrity.
It's the fact that ya avoid answerin questions which might reflect bad on ya if ya answered honestly.
...
It's the fact that ya respond to valid points with insults.
It's the fact that yer accusations o bullyin are completely an utterly unfounded.
If there were real bullies here, the only way to respond to em would be harshly.
However, this response would o neccesity include logical responses, valid points, consistant logic an honesty.
So no, it's not "yer harsh approach to bullies" that I take issue with. It's the simple fact that ya lie, insult an degrade those whom you label as bullies without ever botherin to do a damn thing to justify yerself. Even if we were bullies, yer method o respondin to our bullyin is no better than the bullyin itself, an is in fact-all things considered- worse, in that we at least provide justification fer our actions. We can prove that WSM is bunk. We can prove that DavidD is an idiot. You can't prove we're jack*sses or liar or hypocrites or even bullies.
Liar.
Ya ain't got jack to back up yer claims. I know this cause ya ain't posted jack to back up yer claims. I know ya would post it, because ya spend so much time defendin yer claims an attackin us.
Physorg could only be so lucky...
It don't invalidate my point about yer admission, either. Why? Cause it's not true, as we both know. Yer explaination was paper-thin, the sort o explaination which someone might come up with on the spot to explain behavior which would otherwise seem wrong, not the sort o explaination which someone might offer when accused o that which he never did.
However, if ya decide to hold yerself to any standards whatsoever, feel free to try an show how you not admittin to bein Squish has any bearin whatsoever on the many many examples o the behavior I outlined above.
If this were a moderated forum, this entire thread would have never started. If it did, it would be moved to PM and deleted from public view, with warnings to the instigators, if not an outright ban.
So STFU and go back to playing in the cat-box...
So STFU and go back to playing in the cat-box...
When there is discourse to the point of someone being hurt, then this is not noted as forum.
Some scientific discourse and discussion is important, as ideas towards a common goal can be reached.
I think it is funny that George Lucas produces a series of movies, at which people who saw the first of his movies said that had flashback memories, after watching the subject matter.
I know in this series, which is supposed to be of myth basing, that it is sometimes the little villagers or nomads, that seem to outfox what is termed the Empire.
The ending of some of the Empire soldiers, is not too nice either.
It equally strikes me as funny, that this is one of the first wars, that this boards host land is in, were one side virtually took very little amounts of prisoners and killed most that were caught.
Something is drastically wrong somewhere, when the discourse of conversation, has degraded to the point of this conversation being as corrosive as it is.
There is always the parable of the cruel and excessive hunter trapper who shows no mercy in his overance to the prey he catches, till one day he of course falls in one of his own traps and succumbs to the levity of his own cruelness.
Remember, we discuss a varied many variety of subjects.It would certainly be an awful situation where the abusers would need say a level of knowledge on a certain disease or technology to help a loved one, only to have this level of wanted help thwarted, because they had once been perceived cruel.
(Torture, also befalls the torturer).
Some scientific discourse and discussion is important, as ideas towards a common goal can be reached.
I think it is funny that George Lucas produces a series of movies, at which people who saw the first of his movies said that had flashback memories, after watching the subject matter.
I know in this series, which is supposed to be of myth basing, that it is sometimes the little villagers or nomads, that seem to outfox what is termed the Empire.
The ending of some of the Empire soldiers, is not too nice either.
It equally strikes me as funny, that this is one of the first wars, that this boards host land is in, were one side virtually took very little amounts of prisoners and killed most that were caught.
Something is drastically wrong somewhere, when the discourse of conversation, has degraded to the point of this conversation being as corrosive as it is.
There is always the parable of the cruel and excessive hunter trapper who shows no mercy in his overance to the prey he catches, till one day he of course falls in one of his own traps and succumbs to the levity of his own cruelness.
Remember, we discuss a varied many variety of subjects.It would certainly be an awful situation where the abusers would need say a level of knowledge on a certain disease or technology to help a loved one, only to have this level of wanted help thwarted, because they had once been perceived cruel.
(Torture, also befalls the torturer).
QUOTE (Sapo+Jul 30 2008, 09:02 PM)
If this were a moderated forum, this entire thread would have never started. If it did, it would be moved to PM and deleted from public view, with warnings to the instigators, if not an outright ban.
So STFU and go back to playing in the cat-box...
If I were a mod, I'd let the OP keep this thread, provided his very next post contained evidence to support his arguments here.
Honestly, I don't see what he expects to accomplish by simply callin people names, which is all he's done so far amounts to. (I'd have banned him fer that, if I was a mod.)
So STFU and go back to playing in the cat-box...
If I were a mod, I'd let the OP keep this thread, provided his very next post contained evidence to support his arguments here.
Honestly, I don't see what he expects to accomplish by simply callin people names, which is all he's done so far amounts to. (I'd have banned him fer that, if I was a mod.)
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 30 2008, 08:57 PM)
QUOTE
It don't invalidate my point about yer admission, either. Why? Cause it's not true, as we both know. Yer explaination was paper-thin, the sort o explaination which someone might come up with on the spot to explain behavior which would otherwise seem wrong, not the sort o explaination which someone might offer when accused o that which he never did.
You mean, I noted that you were BDW. You then came back and called me a former member, whom you named Squish. I wrote back "and so it came to pass , you have to guess and I know". And from that you choose to see this as a confession. And I replied that it was no such thing, but the simple fact you made an accusation based on a guess, and I know you are this BDW. And I also later explained that I didn't give a damn. It was something to note that's all. But from what ensued, it is slightly more than a "give no damn about it", because once again the liar would like to be seen as the person telling the truth.
This leads to one of your other "points" in your latest list. The fact that you say I am a liar with no integrity. Really, what planet are you from then?
Then you say my behaviour is bullish. I will put it to the source I have found that it is merely being interpeted that way by a collection of voices at Physorg that seem to find that kinda comeback a convenient way to not have to take on the fact that they have continually abused individuals.
You then go on about my "avoiding" answering questions, because it would reflect on me if I answered honestly. Really , what planet are you from? Your basis for engaging with me is built on a fundamental lie. When liars pretend they are speaking the truth I can react to it a number of ways. When the Apostles here don't seem to possess this kind of understanding, it makes the whole proceeding pointless. The next step is to take it above their heads, to be decided for them, if they haven't got the courtesy to realize it and attempt to change it as a group. You'll find this is what is going to have to happen. Try to get that one clear. you are saying that you don't have to answer the fact that you are a sockpuppet, and that that somehow isn't telling a lie, when it is clearly evident you did already admit it, in a post that has obviously conveniently dissapeared. And by even more use of your logic you then say I was the one that admitted something I cearly didn't admit. Is this kind fo sense a bit too much for you?
And in true Physorg fashion, everything has evolved the way one would expect from the mentality that dominates here. I'm afraid that isn't me bullying you chaps. It's the sad truth about YOU, not me..
This takes us to your next point about my "accusation of bullying being unfounded" really, what planet are you from? The decent people on this planet will have things to say about this point of yours.
I used the word "harsh" because you admitted you are a harsh kind of debater.
And your next point continues in the "honesty" vein, the "logic" vein etc. Really, what planet are you from???? Don't you get it?
Next you say you take offence at my telling lies. What planet are you from? Unless this can be interpreted as self offence on your part. And it's an insult to have to be subject to your logic and insults at the moment. Don't you dig? I doubt you do.
And , please spare me this "we at least provide justification for our actions, but you are a worse type of bully". You've missed the point somewhere along the line. There is no recognized justification for online abuse and bullying.
Mpants, your algebra for dummies hasn't proved WSM is bunk. Your next point "we can prove DavidD is an idiot" is again rather typical. Especially since one so dishonest about who he is as you is saying it.
Your last point in that paragraph does remain to be seen. You are acting very confident about one not being able to prove "we" are bullies and abusive and "jackasses" or liars. You will find that a large proportion of society will have a different view. I'm not persuing the individual cases. I've realized that those responsible, ultimately are the people that run physorg, and they should clean up this act.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It don't invalidate my point about yer admission, either. Why? Cause it's not true, as we both know. Yer explaination was paper-thin, the sort o explaination which someone might come up with on the spot to explain behavior which would otherwise seem wrong, not the sort o explaination which someone might offer when accused o that which he never did. |
You mean, I noted that you were BDW. You then came back and called me a former member, whom you named Squish. I wrote back "and so it came to pass , you have to guess and I know". And from that you choose to see this as a confession. And I replied that it was no such thing, but the simple fact you made an accusation based on a guess, and I know you are this BDW. And I also later explained that I didn't give a damn. It was something to note that's all. But from what ensued, it is slightly more than a "give no damn about it", because once again the liar would like to be seen as the person telling the truth.
This leads to one of your other "points" in your latest list. The fact that you say I am a liar with no integrity. Really, what planet are you from then?
Then you say my behaviour is bullish. I will put it to the source I have found that it is merely being interpeted that way by a collection of voices at Physorg that seem to find that kinda comeback a convenient way to not have to take on the fact that they have continually abused individuals.
You then go on about my "avoiding" answering questions, because it would reflect on me if I answered honestly. Really , what planet are you from? Your basis for engaging with me is built on a fundamental lie. When liars pretend they are speaking the truth I can react to it a number of ways. When the Apostles here don't seem to possess this kind of understanding, it makes the whole proceeding pointless. The next step is to take it above their heads, to be decided for them, if they haven't got the courtesy to realize it and attempt to change it as a group. You'll find this is what is going to have to happen. Try to get that one clear. you are saying that you don't have to answer the fact that you are a sockpuppet, and that that somehow isn't telling a lie, when it is clearly evident you did already admit it, in a post that has obviously conveniently dissapeared. And by even more use of your logic you then say I was the one that admitted something I cearly didn't admit. Is this kind fo sense a bit too much for you?
And in true Physorg fashion, everything has evolved the way one would expect from the mentality that dominates here. I'm afraid that isn't me bullying you chaps. It's the sad truth about YOU, not me..
This takes us to your next point about my "accusation of bullying being unfounded" really, what planet are you from? The decent people on this planet will have things to say about this point of yours.
I used the word "harsh" because you admitted you are a harsh kind of debater.
And your next point continues in the "honesty" vein, the "logic" vein etc. Really, what planet are you from???? Don't you get it?
Next you say you take offence at my telling lies. What planet are you from? Unless this can be interpreted as self offence on your part. And it's an insult to have to be subject to your logic and insults at the moment. Don't you dig? I doubt you do.
And , please spare me this "we at least provide justification for our actions, but you are a worse type of bully". You've missed the point somewhere along the line. There is no recognized justification for online abuse and bullying.
Mpants, your algebra for dummies hasn't proved WSM is bunk. Your next point "we can prove DavidD is an idiot" is again rather typical. Especially since one so dishonest about who he is as you is saying it.
Your last point in that paragraph does remain to be seen. You are acting very confident about one not being able to prove "we" are bullies and abusive and "jackasses" or liars. You will find that a large proportion of society will have a different view. I'm not persuing the individual cases. I've realized that those responsible, ultimately are the people that run physorg, and they should clean up this act.
Liar.
Ya ain't got jack to back up yer claims. I know this cause ya ain't posted jack to back up yer claims. I know ya would post it, because ya spend so much time defendin yer claims an attackin us.
You don't know anything about what you said you know there.
QUOTE
However, if ya decide to hold yerself to any standards whatsoever, feel free to try an show how you not admittin to bein Squish has any bearin whatsoever on the many many examples o the behavior I outlined above.
You attemting to confuse the issue by bringing in a kind of sockpuppet identity of your own is typical of what happens here.
What behavior have you outlined that is actually going to be worth a dime to anyone that comes here and sees for themselves what has accrued? On that note, I'm not interested in any more debate with you. You may feel need to respond. I've more or less said what I have to say. Don't expect any more attempted answers.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Jul 31 2008, 08:31 AM)
Everything is explaining itself perfectly.
I wish you could hear me snort derisively at this comment...
I wish you could hear me snort derisively at this comment...
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 30 2008, 10:08 PM)
I wish you could hear me snort derisively at this comment...
No doubt Apostle Trippy, no doubt.
No doubt Apostle Trippy, no doubt.
I wanted to make one insert before I let this thread go.
To find the future, all you have to do, is to get, rent the first Outer Limits series.
This tells the truth about the future, but it seems by chance.
There is one episode, to where these astronauts on a far distant planet, are exposed too long to this planets suns rays.
This one astronaut solider, keeps his dark goggles on, but never takes them off, all the time saying that he's alright.
He does later taken them off and his eyes are the size of cue-balls, because of what the surface radiation has done to his physiology.
The second one, I think is called (chameleon), to where this freelantz soldier, undergoes a transformation, utalizing captured DNA from a human alien firefight, that the government wants tyhis soldier to infiltrate these aliens.
Both in this series are right on, as in the time to come, the surface of the Earth will be too lethal to live on.You will get genetics defects and loads of other ills if you do.
The second one, is similar to the Roswell crash only backwards, as the human trying to pass himself off as an alien, gets in with the aliens, as part of their troupe.
There is lots of abuse within this society.
Especially at the school level, that I have seen firsthand.
When they pick on your child and you know that he's done nothing to deserve this, they put it to mediation to where your child, even if he's done nothing wrong, has to admit guilt.
The other child, a son of one of the school board, flatly denied this, even when he was the provocateur.
The Nazis did not loose the second world war, they were simply allowed to move to America.
If we're going to go live underground, I would watch that there, due to the film released in Argentia, of a said gnome displaying a weird foot dragging manner of temperament.*See saerch words, gnome sighted in Argentina?
What this is probably equal to, is how reif sharks bow trhier back and point down their pectoral fins, in a threatening manner.
So no, if you go below ground, and this is where hoards of gnomes live, you will not get away from it either.
I think that there is a density change in space, within Earths vicinity in this galaxy.
I don't understand it for the most part, but this sure is affecting our central suns output.
Talk to Lori F. who posted on gravity.Maybe she understands gravity pressure affecting the sun and or section of space?
I do know, without alien help and understanding, that we don't get out of this.
Collectively, I think that we are all in real trouble.
To find the future, all you have to do, is to get, rent the first Outer Limits series.
This tells the truth about the future, but it seems by chance.
There is one episode, to where these astronauts on a far distant planet, are exposed too long to this planets suns rays.
This one astronaut solider, keeps his dark goggles on, but never takes them off, all the time saying that he's alright.
He does later taken them off and his eyes are the size of cue-balls, because of what the surface radiation has done to his physiology.
The second one, I think is called (chameleon), to where this freelantz soldier, undergoes a transformation, utalizing captured DNA from a human alien firefight, that the government wants tyhis soldier to infiltrate these aliens.
Both in this series are right on, as in the time to come, the surface of the Earth will be too lethal to live on.You will get genetics defects and loads of other ills if you do.
The second one, is similar to the Roswell crash only backwards, as the human trying to pass himself off as an alien, gets in with the aliens, as part of their troupe.
There is lots of abuse within this society.
Especially at the school level, that I have seen firsthand.
When they pick on your child and you know that he's done nothing to deserve this, they put it to mediation to where your child, even if he's done nothing wrong, has to admit guilt.
The other child, a son of one of the school board, flatly denied this, even when he was the provocateur.
The Nazis did not loose the second world war, they were simply allowed to move to America.
If we're going to go live underground, I would watch that there, due to the film released in Argentia, of a said gnome displaying a weird foot dragging manner of temperament.*See saerch words, gnome sighted in Argentina?
What this is probably equal to, is how reif sharks bow trhier back and point down their pectoral fins, in a threatening manner.
So no, if you go below ground, and this is where hoards of gnomes live, you will not get away from it either.
I think that there is a density change in space, within Earths vicinity in this galaxy.
I don't understand it for the most part, but this sure is affecting our central suns output.
Talk to Lori F. who posted on gravity.Maybe she understands gravity pressure affecting the sun and or section of space?
I do know, without alien help and understanding, that we don't get out of this.
Collectively, I think that we are all in real trouble.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Jul 31 2008, 10:19 AM)
No doubt Apostle Trippy, no doubt.
Nothing intelligent to say I see.
Nothing intelligent to say I see.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Jul 30 2008, 09:46 PM)
I've more or less said what I have to say. Don't expect any more attempted answers.
PLEASE please please please please be tellin the truth, fer once....
Please?
PLEASE please please please please be tellin the truth, fer once....
Please?
why not...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sCwhok5l1w&NR=1
We rise together. Brother/Sisters love and peace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sCwhok5l1w&NR=1
We rise together. Brother/Sisters love and peace.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Jul 30 2008, 09:46 PM)
On that note, I'm not interested in any more debate with you. You may feel need to respond. I've more or less said what I have to say. Don't expect any more attempted answers.
All it'll do is back up our arguments some more. Not that I have a problem with that, though.
All it'll do is back up our arguments some more. Not that I have a problem with that, though.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jul 31 2008, 03:23 AM)
All it'll do is back up our arguments some more. Not that I have a problem with that, though.
OMG! Just flicked through eight pages of your previous posts Doc.
Do you actually have an argument of any sorts? Pm one of your chums quickly for the answer.
OMG! Just flicked through eight pages of your previous posts Doc.
Do you actually have an argument of any sorts? Pm one of your chums quickly for the answer.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Jul 31 2008, 06:10 PM)
OMG! Just flicked through eight pages of your previous posts Doc.
Do you actually have an argument of any sorts?
Resorting to intellectual dishonesty now? Well, not that I'm really suprised...
Do you actually have an argument of any sorts?
Resorting to intellectual dishonesty now? Well, not that I'm really suprised...
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jul 31 2008, 06:13 PM)
Resorting to intellectual dishonesty now? Well, not that I'm really suprised...
Whatta ya mean "now?"
That's all he's done in this entire argument...
Whatta ya mean "now?"
That's all he's done in this entire argument...
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jul 31 2008, 06:13 PM)
Resorting to intellectual dishonesty now? Well, not that I'm really suprised...
That's it right there. Every post I've read of yours so far, says things like that!!
So, once again, do you actually have an arguement....about anything will do for now. I just need to be sure you know what an argument is. Then if you do, we can see if you've provided any kinda science arguments here. Haven't spotted any so far. Could you do me a massive favour? There's another 70 pages of your posts to go through. Can you tell me where to look for a Doc argument where he presents science in order to counter-act other claims of science?
That's it right there. Every post I've read of yours so far, says things like that!!
So, once again, do you actually have an arguement....about anything will do for now. I just need to be sure you know what an argument is. Then if you do, we can see if you've provided any kinda science arguments here. Haven't spotted any so far. Could you do me a massive favour? There's another 70 pages of your posts to go through. Can you tell me where to look for a Doc argument where he presents science in order to counter-act other claims of science?
QUOTE (Boneidol+Jul 31 2008, 07:26 PM)
That's it right there. Every post I've read of yours so far, says things like that!!
So, once again, do you actually have an arguement....about anything will do for now. I just need to be sure you know what an argument is. Then if you do, we can see if you've provided any kinda science arguments here. Haven't spotted any so far. Could you do me a massive favour? There's another 70 pages of your posts to go through. Can you tell me where to look for a Doc argument where he presents science in order to counter-act other claims of science?
Hey, why doncha really show him up by quotin back all yer own science arguments?
Yanno, like where ya claimed that an electron is massless until it "switches from a wave to a particle"
Oh wait... That's the only science ya've every discussed here on the PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums...
So, once again, do you actually have an arguement....about anything will do for now. I just need to be sure you know what an argument is. Then if you do, we can see if you've provided any kinda science arguments here. Haven't spotted any so far. Could you do me a massive favour? There's another 70 pages of your posts to go through. Can you tell me where to look for a Doc argument where he presents science in order to counter-act other claims of science?
Hey, why doncha really show him up by quotin back all yer own science arguments?
Yanno, like where ya claimed that an electron is massless until it "switches from a wave to a particle"
Oh wait... That's the only science ya've every discussed here on the PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums...
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 31 2008, 07:43 PM)
Hey, why doncha really show him up by quotin back all yer own science arguments?
Yanno, like where ya claimed that an electron is massless until it "switches from a wave to a particle"
Oh wait... That's the only science ya've every discussed here on the PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums...
Ok, you obviously can't stand loosing contact with me. Well, all Doc has to do is beat my one arguement, which you say is incorrect, by posting perhaps two arguements based on an attempt at science? He has posted rather a lot. Is there anything in those posts where he lives up to his forum mafia , protectors of science label?
With regards WSM, I've done the right thing and ordered the book.
Yanno, like where ya claimed that an electron is massless until it "switches from a wave to a particle"
Oh wait... That's the only science ya've every discussed here on the PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums...
Ok, you obviously can't stand loosing contact with me. Well, all Doc has to do is beat my one arguement, which you say is incorrect, by posting perhaps two arguements based on an attempt at science? He has posted rather a lot. Is there anything in those posts where he lives up to his forum mafia , protectors of science label?
With regards WSM, I've done the right thing and ordered the book.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Jul 31 2008, 08:00 PM)
Ok, you obviously can't stand loosing contact with me.
Wrong! If that were true, it suggest I'd get upset when ya finally get banned again. Nothin could be further from the truth, I assure ya!
Truth is, I get a kick outa exposin you fer the lyin hypocrite ya are.
Stop lyin an bein so blatantly hypocritical as to berate TheDoc fer his apparent lack o scientific posts when you yerself are limited to 2 or 3 posts, involvin an fundamental misconception about physics so deep it skewed yer perception o such things as wavefunctions. When ya do that, I'll leave ya alone, fer sure.
Hell, I might even pos ya. (No sh*t, I really would if ya gave me a reason to!)
TheDoc, on Evolution
TheDoc, on cosmology
TheDoc, on cosmology pt. 2
Those three have been presented to you by TheDoc already. It's nice to see ya jes ignore evidence which contradicts yer claims...
TheDoc, on Evolution
TheDoc, on cosmology
TheDoc, on cosmology pt. 2
Those three have been presented to you by TheDoc already. It's nice to see ya jes ignore evidence which contradicts yer claims...
With regards WSM, I've done the right thing and ordered the book.
Why? Can you show Trippy's 6 points to be invalid? If not, there's no reason (other than enjoyment at readin a stupid theory) to order it. It's not a valid model o our universe.
More of the Mpants guesswork here. Because he is so convinced he has his man. Strange, I've gone and checked up a little on that. Why the obsession with Squish/Squeeze? You never had any dealings with that person. How would you even get to thinking that I could be this person? Yet when one delves a little deeper, one sees that Squeeze was here when BDW was. "Lyin hipocrite"...uh huh, ok you should have dropped this when you could just have gone on about your business. I didn't give a stuff about your hipocrasy, the way you berate others for getting banned and then creating a sockpuppet. But not you right?
You really don't have to answer. We all know why you wouldn't want to, becuase of fear of being banned. But how about quitting the liar liar stuff? In the end you are going to back yourself into the corner you are trying to back me into.
More of the Mpants guesswork here. Because he is so convinced he has his man. Strange, I've gone and checked up a little on that. Why the obsession with Squish/Squeeze? You never had any dealings with that person. How would you even get to thinking that I could be this person? Yet when one delves a little deeper, one sees that Squeeze was here when BDW was. "Lyin hipocrite"...uh huh, ok you should have dropped this when you could just have gone on about your business. I didn't give a stuff about your hipocrasy, the way you berate others for getting banned and then creating a sockpuppet. But not you right?
You really don't have to answer. We all know why you wouldn't want to, becuase of fear of being banned. But how about quitting the liar liar stuff? In the end you are going to back yourself into the corner you are trying to back me into.
Stop lyin an bein so blatantly hypocritical as to berate TheDoc fer his apparent lack o scientific posts when you yerself are limited to 2 or 3 posts, involvin an fundamental misconception about physics so deep it skewed yer perception o such things as wavefunctions. When ya do that, I'll leave ya alone, fer sure.
This is a different matter. Here we have someone called theDoc who makes it his business to go around questioning others about science. I am not doing that. And when it came to an opinion about WSM, I said that I would read the book and then decide on an opinion.
As far as I have been led to believe, an electron behaves as a wave and as a particle. If, whilst a wave it is not massless, then I have had it wrong. It's that simple. Not the dramatic crap you pour over people. Oh gooody gooody , someone is wrong. Get a hard on why dontchya.
Back to theDoc. Haven't gone to the links provided yet. Will respond on them after I have. But I will say already that I expected many posts about science from someone who consider himself a member of the "forum mafia". After all, what is the role of this mafia? Just to intimidate? Perhaps theDoc has the ability to do that. How many posts has he made here, well over 1000? And this is the extent of his science contribution?
Anything constructive is fine.
Anything constructive is fine.
Why? Can you show Trippy's 6 points to be invalid? If not, there's no reason (other than enjoyment at readin a stupid theory) to order it. It's not a valid model o our universe.
I can't stand attitudes like this Mpants. Having seen the politics go on regarding WSM, I became interested in it. Now, I'm not about to take the word of the iffy folks here dissing it. There may be a good reason for not blantly ignoring something like this. It may provide the kind of things that would benefit this planet. On that note, I trust you understand why your views on it are not enough, nor Trippy's six pointed argument. If there are questions I need answering regarding this WSM, believe it or not I will not come here to get answers. Anonimous people playing what is valid and what ain't isn't how I come to decisions about things like this.
I'm not a catagorizer that way. I read all sorts of stuff. Also, we're on the internet now, surf to our hearts content. I have no aspirations when it comes to being anyone in science. I'm more interested in the games people play. Although perhaps the Milo Wolf book will inspire me to make a bigger effort to understand.
Three other books I'm reading at the moment are
1 - The emerging physics of consciousness J Tusynski (published by Springer)
2 - The Conscious Mind David Chalmers (oxford university press)
3 - Thirteenth Stone R Lewis
with this quote at the beginning:
Read not to contradict and confute nor to believe and take for
granted, but to weigh and consider... Histories make men
wise."
Francis Bacon
4 -Learning from nature - How to design new implantable biomaterials (assorted authors)
I'm not a catagorizer that way. I read all sorts of stuff. Also, we're on the internet now, surf to our hearts content. I have no aspirations when it comes to being anyone in science. I'm more interested in the games people play. Although perhaps the Milo Wolf book will inspire me to make a bigger effort to understand.
Three other books I'm reading at the moment are
1 - The emerging physics of consciousness J Tusynski (published by Springer)
2 - The Conscious Mind David Chalmers (oxford university press)
3 - Thirteenth Stone R Lewis
with this quote at the beginning:
Read not to contradict and confute nor to believe and take for
granted, but to weigh and consider... Histories make men
wise."
Francis Bacon
4 -Learning from nature - How to design new implantable biomaterials (assorted authors)
If not, why do you so quickly go to someone who cannot get his work published, who doesn't seem to grasp mainstream work and who makes you pay for his 'truth' while physicists offer it free at www.arxiv.org ? Doesn't say much about his scientific integrity, does it?
Well, the biggest reason is that I can buy any book I choose to. I don't live in North Korea. I wasn't aware that he cannot get this work published. How do you know he has made this attempt?
Wrong! If that were true, it suggest I'd get upset when ya finally get banned again. Nothin could be further from the truth, I assure ya!
Truth is, I get a kick outa exposin you fer the lyin hypocrite ya are.
Stop lyin an bein so blatantly hypocritical as to berate TheDoc fer his apparent lack o scientific posts when you yerself are limited to 2 or 3 posts, involvin an fundamental misconception about physics so deep it skewed yer perception o such things as wavefunctions. When ya do that, I'll leave ya alone, fer sure.
Hell, I might even pos ya. (No sh*t, I really would if ya gave me a reason to!)
QUOTE
Well, all Doc has to do is beat my one arguement, which you say is incorrect, by posting perhaps two arguements based on an attempt at science? He has posted rather a lot. Is there anything in those posts where he lives up to his forum mafia , protectors of science label?
TheDoc, on Evolution
TheDoc, on cosmology
TheDoc, on cosmology pt. 2
Those three have been presented to you by TheDoc already. It's nice to see ya jes ignore evidence which contradicts yer claims...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Well, all Doc has to do is beat my one arguement, which you say is incorrect, by posting perhaps two arguements based on an attempt at science? He has posted rather a lot. Is there anything in those posts where he lives up to his forum mafia , protectors of science label? |
TheDoc, on Evolution
TheDoc, on cosmology
TheDoc, on cosmology pt. 2
Those three have been presented to you by TheDoc already. It's nice to see ya jes ignore evidence which contradicts yer claims...
With regards WSM, I've done the right thing and ordered the book.
Why? Can you show Trippy's 6 points to be invalid? If not, there's no reason (other than enjoyment at readin a stupid theory) to order it. It's not a valid model o our universe.
QUOTE
Wrong! If that were true, it suggest I'd get upset when ya finally get banned again. Nothin could be further from the truth, I assure ya! Truth is, I get a kick outa exposin you fer the lyin hypocrite ya are.
More of the Mpants guesswork here. Because he is so convinced he has his man. Strange, I've gone and checked up a little on that. Why the obsession with Squish/Squeeze? You never had any dealings with that person. How would you even get to thinking that I could be this person? Yet when one delves a little deeper, one sees that Squeeze was here when BDW was. "Lyin hipocrite"...uh huh, ok you should have dropped this when you could just have gone on about your business. I didn't give a stuff about your hipocrasy, the way you berate others for getting banned and then creating a sockpuppet. But not you right?
You really don't have to answer. We all know why you wouldn't want to, becuase of fear of being banned. But how about quitting the liar liar stuff? In the end you are going to back yourself into the corner you are trying to back me into.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Wrong! If that were true, it suggest I'd get upset when ya finally get banned again. Nothin could be further from the truth, I assure ya! Truth is, I get a kick outa exposin you fer the lyin hypocrite ya are. |
More of the Mpants guesswork here. Because he is so convinced he has his man. Strange, I've gone and checked up a little on that. Why the obsession with Squish/Squeeze? You never had any dealings with that person. How would you even get to thinking that I could be this person? Yet when one delves a little deeper, one sees that Squeeze was here when BDW was. "Lyin hipocrite"...uh huh, ok you should have dropped this when you could just have gone on about your business. I didn't give a stuff about your hipocrasy, the way you berate others for getting banned and then creating a sockpuppet. But not you right?
You really don't have to answer. We all know why you wouldn't want to, becuase of fear of being banned. But how about quitting the liar liar stuff? In the end you are going to back yourself into the corner you are trying to back me into.
Stop lyin an bein so blatantly hypocritical as to berate TheDoc fer his apparent lack o scientific posts when you yerself are limited to 2 or 3 posts, involvin an fundamental misconception about physics so deep it skewed yer perception o such things as wavefunctions. When ya do that, I'll leave ya alone, fer sure.
This is a different matter. Here we have someone called theDoc who makes it his business to go around questioning others about science. I am not doing that. And when it came to an opinion about WSM, I said that I would read the book and then decide on an opinion.
As far as I have been led to believe, an electron behaves as a wave and as a particle. If, whilst a wave it is not massless, then I have had it wrong. It's that simple. Not the dramatic crap you pour over people. Oh gooody gooody , someone is wrong. Get a hard on why dontchya.
Back to theDoc. Haven't gone to the links provided yet. Will respond on them after I have. But I will say already that I expected many posts about science from someone who consider himself a member of the "forum mafia". After all, what is the role of this mafia? Just to intimidate? Perhaps theDoc has the ability to do that. How many posts has he made here, well over 1000? And this is the extent of his science contribution?
QUOTE
Hell, I might even pos ya. (No sh*t, I really would if ya gave me a reason to!)
Anything constructive is fine.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hell, I might even pos ya. (No sh*t, I really would if ya gave me a reason to!) |
Anything constructive is fine.
Why? Can you show Trippy's 6 points to be invalid? If not, there's no reason (other than enjoyment at readin a stupid theory) to order it. It's not a valid model o our universe.
I can't stand attitudes like this Mpants. Having seen the politics go on regarding WSM, I became interested in it. Now, I'm not about to take the word of the iffy folks here dissing it. There may be a good reason for not blantly ignoring something like this. It may provide the kind of things that would benefit this planet. On that note, I trust you understand why your views on it are not enough, nor Trippy's six pointed argument. If there are questions I need answering regarding this WSM, believe it or not I will not come here to get answers. Anonimous people playing what is valid and what ain't isn't how I come to decisions about things like this.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Jul 31 2008, 09:00 PM)
With regards WSM, I've done the right thing and ordered the book.
Out of interest, what's your level of learning and competancy at mainstream physics? Have you done a mathematical or physics based degree? If not, have you bought and worked through many mainstream textbooks on those subjects?
If not, why do you so quickly go to someone who cannot get his work published, who doesn't seem to grasp mainstream work and who makes you pay for his 'truth' while physicists offer it free at www.arxiv.org ? Doesn't say much about his scientific integrity, does it?
Out of interest, what's your level of learning and competancy at mainstream physics? Have you done a mathematical or physics based degree? If not, have you bought and worked through many mainstream textbooks on those subjects?
If not, why do you so quickly go to someone who cannot get his work published, who doesn't seem to grasp mainstream work and who makes you pay for his 'truth' while physicists offer it free at www.arxiv.org ? Doesn't say much about his scientific integrity, does it?
From here on..
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=303243
Bullying or not?
-C2.
Edit All parties seem to know that Robin Parsons live in Canada - I assume they are correct. BDW will doubtless wish to point out that they could not know this for a fact .. the IP address (see later) could be misleading .. etc. etc.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=303243
Bullying or not?
-C2.
Edit All parties seem to know that Robin Parsons live in Canada - I assume they are correct. BDW will doubtless wish to point out that they could not know this for a fact .. the IP address (see later) could be misleading .. etc. etc.
QUOTE
Out of interest, what's your level of learning and competancy at mainstream physics? Have you done a mathematical or physics based degree? If not, have you bought and worked through many mainstream textbooks on those subjects?
I'm not a catagorizer that way. I read all sorts of stuff. Also, we're on the internet now, surf to our hearts content. I have no aspirations when it comes to being anyone in science. I'm more interested in the games people play. Although perhaps the Milo Wolf book will inspire me to make a bigger effort to understand.
Three other books I'm reading at the moment are
1 - The emerging physics of consciousness J Tusynski (published by Springer)
2 - The Conscious Mind David Chalmers (oxford university press)
3 - Thirteenth Stone R Lewis
with this quote at the beginning:
Read not to contradict and confute nor to believe and take for
granted, but to weigh and consider... Histories make men
wise."
Francis Bacon
4 -Learning from nature - How to design new implantable biomaterials (assorted authors)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Out of interest, what's your level of learning and competancy at mainstream physics? Have you done a mathematical or physics based degree? If not, have you bought and worked through many mainstream textbooks on those subjects? |
I'm not a catagorizer that way. I read all sorts of stuff. Also, we're on the internet now, surf to our hearts content. I have no aspirations when it comes to being anyone in science. I'm more interested in the games people play. Although perhaps the Milo Wolf book will inspire me to make a bigger effort to understand.
Three other books I'm reading at the moment are
1 - The emerging physics of consciousness J Tusynski (published by Springer)
2 - The Conscious Mind David Chalmers (oxford university press)
3 - Thirteenth Stone R Lewis
with this quote at the beginning:
Read not to contradict and confute nor to believe and take for
granted, but to weigh and consider... Histories make men
wise."
Francis Bacon
4 -Learning from nature - How to design new implantable biomaterials (assorted authors)
If not, why do you so quickly go to someone who cannot get his work published, who doesn't seem to grasp mainstream work and who makes you pay for his 'truth' while physicists offer it free at www.arxiv.org ? Doesn't say much about his scientific integrity, does it?
Well, the biggest reason is that I can buy any book I choose to. I don't live in North Korea. I wasn't aware that he cannot get this work published. How do you know he has made this attempt?
QUOTE (Confused2+Jul 31 2008, 10:52 PM)
From here on..
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=303243
Bullying or not?
-C2.
Edit All parties seem to know that Robin Parsons live in Canada - I assume they are correct. BDW will doubtless wish to point out that they could not know this for a fact .. the IP address (see later) could be misleading .. etc. etc.
Wow, wish I'd seen that one. I read the first few posts there, and it is rather OTT no? What did Parson's do to get the mob so riled up? Haven't got time to read anymore tonight.
Let's include NOM too, as he offered his services to the mob.
Seems to me quite a few people recognize a mob mentality here.
Hey maybe I'm Parsons.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=303243
Bullying or not?
-C2.
Edit All parties seem to know that Robin Parsons live in Canada - I assume they are correct. BDW will doubtless wish to point out that they could not know this for a fact .. the IP address (see later) could be misleading .. etc. etc.
Wow, wish I'd seen that one. I read the first few posts there, and it is rather OTT no? What did Parson's do to get the mob so riled up? Haven't got time to read anymore tonight.
QUOTE
And now you (Group=Cecil P Abstract-Sapo-Gehn-BigDumbWeirdo-Trippy) are word-acting like the mob.
Let's include NOM too, as he offered his services to the mob.
Seems to me quite a few people recognize a mob mentality here.
Hey maybe I'm Parsons.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 31 2008, 11:17 AM)
Doesn't say much about his scientific integrity, does it?
Perhaps this may help you in your endeavours to find the truth of the matter...
Biography of Dr. Milo Wolff
Technotran Press 124 Third St.
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Phone/fax: 310-379-7855 or 510-841-2626 (Berkeley, Calif.)
milo.wolff@QuantumMatter.com
Biographical Data
Date of birth: August 8, 1923 Place of birth: Glen Ridge, New Jersey Nationality : USA
Education
Upsala College, BS (Biophysics),
1948 University of Pennsylvania, MS (Physics/EE),
1953 University of Pennsylvania, PhD (Physics),
1958 Major Academic Discipline(s) Physics, EE, Astronomy, CE, Economics. Area(s) of specialization Optics, particle structure, quantum theory, electromagnetism, light scattering, education, economics
Positions Held
Professor of Physics/EE, University of Indonesia (Bandung Institute of Technology), 1958-1962.
USAID Grant to the U of Kentucky.
Foundation Professor of Physics, University of Singapore (Nanyang Institute of Technology), 1970-72.
Fulbright Grant Support. Professor of Physics, University of Sri-Lanka, 1966-1968. Established the Science Faculty. Asia Foundation support.
Physicist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 1963-1969.
Apollo mooncraft navigation system. Measurement of atmospheric chemistry by space-borne Computer-aided Tomography (CAT); principal investigator for airglow height measurement; design of space-viewed horizon sensors; satellite measurements of Earth's gravity.
Member, Technical Staff, Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles. 1972-1975.
Planning earth-survey satellites. Principal investigator for NASA grant to analyze satellite gravity data.
United Nations, Chief, Science and Technology, Economic Committee for Africa. 1975-77.
Member of NSF Review Team to Pakistan for Science Policy (Sept-Oct), 1974.
Visiting Astronomer, Observatoire de Paris. Plantary Polarization (Nov-Dec), 1979.
Visiting Professor, Nanjing Institute of Technology, China. Space Navigation and Computers (Sept-Oct), 1982.
Honors (awards, fellowships, prizes, honorary degrees.)
Honorary Doctorate of Science, University of Sri-Lanka, 1992 (for pioneer work in establishing the Science Faculty at Kelaniya) Commendation from NASA for research work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Earth's atmosphere and the Moon's surface for navigation of the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.
Honorary Science Society, Sigma X1 (1952) Various tuition scholarships, NSF Honorable Mention (1951)
Biography in Who's Who in American Science & Engineering
Member, National Academy of Science, Methane Energy Panel (1974)
Major Work
Wolff has found the structure of the electron consisting of two spherical quantum waves, one moving radially outward and another moving radially inward. The center of the waves is the nominal location of the electron 'particle'. These waves extend to infinity, like charge force. All 'particle' waves mix and contribute to each other, thus all matter of the universe is interrelated by this intimate connection between the fundamental 'particles' and the universe. The natural laws are a direct consequence of this Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), thus WSM underlies all of science.
Three Principles underlie the WSM
Principle I. Wave Equation Determines the behavior of Quantum Waves in Space.
Principle II. Wave Density Principle. Generalization of Mach's Principle - determines the density of the quantum wave medium.
Principle III. Minimum Amplitude Principle (MAP). The sum of Wave Amplitudes seeks a Minimum at each point in Space.
Publications
'Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe' (Technotran Press, CA) A reader-friendly investigation of the natural laws with applications to particles and cosmology. 2nd edition (1994). See at www.amazon.com
'Exploring the Universe and the Origin of it Laws,' Temple University Frontier Perspectives, 6, No 2, pp. 44-56 (1997). This provides the philosophy of why Wave Structure of Matter must be true.
'The Eight-Fold Way of the Universe,' Apeiron 4, no. 4. Oct (1997).
'Relativistic Mass Increase and Doppler Shift without Special Relativity,' Galilean Electrodynamics, 8, No. 4, (1997).
'Origin of the Spin of the Electron' Amer. Phys. Soc.
This work provided the last unknown of the electron - its spin. It showed how all matter of the universe is inter-connected by their wave structures.
'Microphysics, Fundamental Laws and Cosmology.' Invited paper at Proc. 1st Int'l Sakharov Conf. Phys., Moscow, May 21-31, 1991, L. Keldysh & V. Fainberg, editors, pp.1131-1150, Nova Sci. Publ.,NY (1992).
'Fundamental Laws, Microphysics and Cosmology,' Physics Essays, 6, pp 181-203. This is the first in-depth description of the Wave Structure of Matter (1993).
'Beyond the Point Particle - A Wave Structure for the Electron,' Galilean Electrodynamics, 6, No. 5, pp. 83-91 (1995).
Two selected papers in volume on Polarization in six-volume set were published by International Society for Optical Engineering, Bruce Billings, Editor, 1990. Theory and Application of the Polarization Albedo Rules, Icarus, 44, pp. 780-792 (1980).
Polarization of Light from Rough Planetary Surfaces, Applied Optics, 14, pp. 1395-1405 (1975)
Experiments to Test Theoretical Models of the Polarization of Light, Geake, Geake and Zellner, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 210, pp. 89-112 (1984). These experiments showed the Wolff model to be correct.
Precision Limb Profiles for Navigation and Research, J. Spacecraft, pp. 978-983 (1967).
Project Narratives
Wolff's work at MIT (1963-69) on the structure of the atmosphere resulted in a $6 million contract for MIT to build apparatus that would scan the atmosphere in orbit and then compute the constituents over the entire earth. This scanning scheme and math method were the precursor to the MRI (magnetic resonance image) scheme developed five years later to scan the human body. In Singapore (1970-72) and at the Aerospace Corporation (1973-75), he did computer studies of the structure of rough surfaces of asteroids and planetary satellites seeking the cause of 'negative polarization' of reflected light - an 80 year old mystery of planetary astronomy. His results showed the cause to be multiple scattering of light and interior reflections in grains. This knowledge makes it possible to remotely measure the size of distant asteroids as well as the index of refraction of grains on distant surfaces. At the UN (1975-77) and privately (1978-present) he did the pioneering research on the Wave Structure of Matter, leading to a quantitative quantum wave structure of the electron/positron and the origin of the natural laws. He has shown how the fundamental particles, being in fact the Wave-Centers of Spherical Waves in Space, are intimately joined with the large-scale structure of the universe.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Biography.htm
Or perhaps a school boy who needs a gang of thugs behind him can tell us more of 'scientific integrity'?
g.
Perhaps this may help you in your endeavours to find the truth of the matter...
Biography of Dr. Milo Wolff
Technotran Press 124 Third St.
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Phone/fax: 310-379-7855 or 510-841-2626 (Berkeley, Calif.)
milo.wolff@QuantumMatter.com
Biographical Data
Date of birth: August 8, 1923 Place of birth: Glen Ridge, New Jersey Nationality : USA
Education
Upsala College, BS (Biophysics),
1948 University of Pennsylvania, MS (Physics/EE),
1953 University of Pennsylvania, PhD (Physics),
1958 Major Academic Discipline(s) Physics, EE, Astronomy, CE, Economics. Area(s) of specialization Optics, particle structure, quantum theory, electromagnetism, light scattering, education, economics
Positions Held
Professor of Physics/EE, University of Indonesia (Bandung Institute of Technology), 1958-1962.
USAID Grant to the U of Kentucky.
Foundation Professor of Physics, University of Singapore (Nanyang Institute of Technology), 1970-72.
Fulbright Grant Support. Professor of Physics, University of Sri-Lanka, 1966-1968. Established the Science Faculty. Asia Foundation support.
Physicist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 1963-1969.
Apollo mooncraft navigation system. Measurement of atmospheric chemistry by space-borne Computer-aided Tomography (CAT); principal investigator for airglow height measurement; design of space-viewed horizon sensors; satellite measurements of Earth's gravity.
Member, Technical Staff, Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles. 1972-1975.
Planning earth-survey satellites. Principal investigator for NASA grant to analyze satellite gravity data.
United Nations, Chief, Science and Technology, Economic Committee for Africa. 1975-77.
Member of NSF Review Team to Pakistan for Science Policy (Sept-Oct), 1974.
Visiting Astronomer, Observatoire de Paris. Plantary Polarization (Nov-Dec), 1979.
Visiting Professor, Nanjing Institute of Technology, China. Space Navigation and Computers (Sept-Oct), 1982.
Honors (awards, fellowships, prizes, honorary degrees.)
Honorary Doctorate of Science, University of Sri-Lanka, 1992 (for pioneer work in establishing the Science Faculty at Kelaniya) Commendation from NASA for research work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Earth's atmosphere and the Moon's surface for navigation of the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.
Honorary Science Society, Sigma X1 (1952) Various tuition scholarships, NSF Honorable Mention (1951)
Biography in Who's Who in American Science & Engineering
Member, National Academy of Science, Methane Energy Panel (1974)
Major Work
Wolff has found the structure of the electron consisting of two spherical quantum waves, one moving radially outward and another moving radially inward. The center of the waves is the nominal location of the electron 'particle'. These waves extend to infinity, like charge force. All 'particle' waves mix and contribute to each other, thus all matter of the universe is interrelated by this intimate connection between the fundamental 'particles' and the universe. The natural laws are a direct consequence of this Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), thus WSM underlies all of science.
Three Principles underlie the WSM
Principle I. Wave Equation Determines the behavior of Quantum Waves in Space.
Principle II. Wave Density Principle. Generalization of Mach's Principle - determines the density of the quantum wave medium.
Principle III. Minimum Amplitude Principle (MAP). The sum of Wave Amplitudes seeks a Minimum at each point in Space.
Publications
'Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe' (Technotran Press, CA) A reader-friendly investigation of the natural laws with applications to particles and cosmology. 2nd edition (1994). See at www.amazon.com
'Exploring the Universe and the Origin of it Laws,' Temple University Frontier Perspectives, 6, No 2, pp. 44-56 (1997). This provides the philosophy of why Wave Structure of Matter must be true.
'The Eight-Fold Way of the Universe,' Apeiron 4, no. 4. Oct (1997).
'Relativistic Mass Increase and Doppler Shift without Special Relativity,' Galilean Electrodynamics, 8, No. 4, (1997).
'Origin of the Spin of the Electron' Amer. Phys. Soc.
This work provided the last unknown of the electron - its spin. It showed how all matter of the universe is inter-connected by their wave structures.
'Microphysics, Fundamental Laws and Cosmology.' Invited paper at Proc. 1st Int'l Sakharov Conf. Phys., Moscow, May 21-31, 1991, L. Keldysh & V. Fainberg, editors, pp.1131-1150, Nova Sci. Publ.,NY (1992).
'Fundamental Laws, Microphysics and Cosmology,' Physics Essays, 6, pp 181-203. This is the first in-depth description of the Wave Structure of Matter (1993).
'Beyond the Point Particle - A Wave Structure for the Electron,' Galilean Electrodynamics, 6, No. 5, pp. 83-91 (1995).
Two selected papers in volume on Polarization in six-volume set were published by International Society for Optical Engineering, Bruce Billings, Editor, 1990. Theory and Application of the Polarization Albedo Rules, Icarus, 44, pp. 780-792 (1980).
Polarization of Light from Rough Planetary Surfaces, Applied Optics, 14, pp. 1395-1405 (1975)
Experiments to Test Theoretical Models of the Polarization of Light, Geake, Geake and Zellner, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 210, pp. 89-112 (1984). These experiments showed the Wolff model to be correct.
Precision Limb Profiles for Navigation and Research, J. Spacecraft, pp. 978-983 (1967).
Project Narratives
Wolff's work at MIT (1963-69) on the structure of the atmosphere resulted in a $6 million contract for MIT to build apparatus that would scan the atmosphere in orbit and then compute the constituents over the entire earth. This scanning scheme and math method were the precursor to the MRI (magnetic resonance image) scheme developed five years later to scan the human body. In Singapore (1970-72) and at the Aerospace Corporation (1973-75), he did computer studies of the structure of rough surfaces of asteroids and planetary satellites seeking the cause of 'negative polarization' of reflected light - an 80 year old mystery of planetary astronomy. His results showed the cause to be multiple scattering of light and interior reflections in grains. This knowledge makes it possible to remotely measure the size of distant asteroids as well as the index of refraction of grains on distant surfaces. At the UN (1975-77) and privately (1978-present) he did the pioneering research on the Wave Structure of Matter, leading to a quantitative quantum wave structure of the electron/positron and the origin of the natural laws. He has shown how the fundamental particles, being in fact the Wave-Centers of Spherical Waves in Space, are intimately joined with the large-scale structure of the universe.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Biography.htm
Or perhaps a school boy who needs a gang of thugs behind him can tell us more of 'scientific integrity'?
g.
For f*ck's sake, get over your sick and demented obsession with Wolff. He is lauded for his efforts in areas COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO WSM. Because he did good work in another area DOES NOT MEAN he does good work in all areas.
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 1 2008, 10:52 AM)
From here on..
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=303243
Bullying or not?
-C2.
Edit All parties seem to know that Robin Parsons live in Canada - I assume they are correct. BDW will doubtless wish to point out that they could not know this for a fact .. the IP address (see later) could be misleading .. etc. etc.
Good one dip****.
You don't possibly think that Parson's comments about BDW and Autism could possibly have done anything to provoke a reaction?
No, of course not.
The conversation went something along the lines of:
BDW: "I'm autistic, and I've got better social graces then you have."
MRP: "Stop using your autism as an excuse for being an ***hole."
BDW: "I'm not, i'm simply saying i've had to deal with these issues, and I've got better social graces then you."
MRP: "Stop using your autism as an excuse for being an ***hole."
BDW: "I'm not."
Me: "He really isn't."
MRP: "Stop using your autism as an excuse for being an ***hole, Trippy, you're just encouraging him to be complacent, and not doing him any favours. You're lying, and perpetrating a punblic conspiracy against me."
Nice job of taking things out of context though.
And as for knowing that Parsons lives in Kingston Ontario, Parsons made that abundantly clear on many occasions, it's nothing we've inferred.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=303243
Bullying or not?
-C2.
Edit All parties seem to know that Robin Parsons live in Canada - I assume they are correct. BDW will doubtless wish to point out that they could not know this for a fact .. the IP address (see later) could be misleading .. etc. etc.
Good one dip****.
You don't possibly think that Parson's comments about BDW and Autism could possibly have done anything to provoke a reaction?
No, of course not.
The conversation went something along the lines of:
BDW: "I'm autistic, and I've got better social graces then you have."
MRP: "Stop using your autism as an excuse for being an ***hole."
BDW: "I'm not, i'm simply saying i've had to deal with these issues, and I've got better social graces then you."
MRP: "Stop using your autism as an excuse for being an ***hole."
BDW: "I'm not."
Me: "He really isn't."
MRP: "Stop using your autism as an excuse for being an ***hole, Trippy, you're just encouraging him to be complacent, and not doing him any favours. You're lying, and perpetrating a punblic conspiracy against me."
Nice job of taking things out of context though.
And as for knowing that Parsons lives in Kingston Ontario, Parsons made that abundantly clear on many occasions, it's nothing we've inferred.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 1 2008, 11:25 AM)
Wow, wish I'd seen that one. I read the first few posts there, and it is rather OTT no? What did Parson's do to get the mob so riled up? Haven't got time to read anymore tonight.
And once again, you illustrate everything that I have said about you.
I don't actually have to do anything to demonstrate what a *** you are, you're doing all the work for me.
And once again, you illustrate everything that I have said about you.
I don't actually have to do anything to demonstrate what a *** you are, you're doing all the work for me.
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 31 2008, 01:10 PM)
For f*ck's sake, get over your sick and demented obsession with Wolff. He is lauded for his efforts in areas COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO WSM. Because he did good work in another area DOES NOT MEAN he does good work in all areas.
Nothing is 'completely unrelated' in this Universe.
WSM explains how all things are interconnected. It would not matter to me 'who' put the 'equations' together. It works, and that is that.
No one is saying that he is great 'in all areas'. He would be the first to refute such a ridiculous comment. WSM does not represent 'all areas'. This is just another 'branch' of the human tree of knowledge, or a new shoot, more like. There will be plenty of work left for any Real physicists/mathematicians to squabble over!
You would do much better to offer something more plausible yourself, instead of the same old ranting tactics of little boys. This does nothing to further your cause other than prove how wrong you are!
And this will be my last communication to you. I provided you with a nice long, coherent and good-hearted explanation for what I thought was a serious question, and it turns out you didn't even bother to read it.
g.
Nothing is 'completely unrelated' in this Universe.
WSM explains how all things are interconnected. It would not matter to me 'who' put the 'equations' together. It works, and that is that.
No one is saying that he is great 'in all areas'. He would be the first to refute such a ridiculous comment. WSM does not represent 'all areas'. This is just another 'branch' of the human tree of knowledge, or a new shoot, more like. There will be plenty of work left for any Real physicists/mathematicians to squabble over!
You would do much better to offer something more plausible yourself, instead of the same old ranting tactics of little boys. This does nothing to further your cause other than prove how wrong you are!
And this will be my last communication to you. I provided you with a nice long, coherent and good-hearted explanation for what I thought was a serious question, and it turns out you didn't even bother to read it.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jul 31 2008, 08:19 PM)
And this will be my last communication to you. I provided you with a nice long, coherent and good-hearted explanation for what I thought was a serious question
No you did not. You copied and pasted from your obsession's website. AGAIN.
So because he was lauded for his work on the ATMOSPHERE, it qualifies him as a theoretical physicist suited to form a "theory of everything" and have people take it at face value? You seem to be missing the point. You keep babbling about how he was commended by NASA, held all these teaching positions you continually copy and paste from your favorite site in the universe.
IT DOESN'T MAKE WSM VALID
If he's so lauded by the scientific community, he would be able to get his work into journals no problem (certainly something as monumental as a theory of everything), not selling it in a book. Know what else is sold in a book? Null physics, you can buy it out of the back of Popular Science. It "works," too. You want me to start spamming it here like you do with Wolff?
Wolff's peer-review issue has been pointed out to you many times yet you just jam your fingers in your ears and scream NASA COMMENDATION NASA COMMENDATION over and over, hoping this will all go away and everyone will join you in your fanatical obsession with Wolff.
Oh really? Actually, I did. Don't assume, you continually make an arse out of yourself.
No you did not. You copied and pasted from your obsession's website. AGAIN.
So because he was lauded for his work on the ATMOSPHERE, it qualifies him as a theoretical physicist suited to form a "theory of everything" and have people take it at face value? You seem to be missing the point. You keep babbling about how he was commended by NASA, held all these teaching positions you continually copy and paste from your favorite site in the universe.
IT DOESN'T MAKE WSM VALID
If he's so lauded by the scientific community, he would be able to get his work into journals no problem (certainly something as monumental as a theory of everything), not selling it in a book. Know what else is sold in a book? Null physics, you can buy it out of the back of Popular Science. It "works," too. You want me to start spamming it here like you do with Wolff?
Wolff's peer-review issue has been pointed out to you many times yet you just jam your fingers in your ears and scream NASA COMMENDATION NASA COMMENDATION over and over, hoping this will all go away and everyone will join you in your fanatical obsession with Wolff.
QUOTE
, and it turns out you didn't even bother to read it.
Oh really? Actually, I did. Don't assume, you continually make an arse out of yourself.
QUOTE (Lui Di Martino+)
Here we have someone called theDoc who makes it his business to go around questioning others about science.
Because they have questionable stances when it comes to science.
In a nutshell:
In a nutshell:
From here on..
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=303243
Bullying or not?
Not.
Yes and you have questionable stances when it comes to your harrassment.
And what's with the "Lui Di Martino"? Just add it to the LIST.
Oh and Doc do you know both Mpants and BDW btw?
Yes and you have questionable stances when it comes to your harrassment.
And what's with the "Lui Di Martino"? Just add it to the LIST.
Oh and Doc do you know both Mpants and BDW btw?
In a nutshell:
to seek out and ridicule proponents of scientific ideas that are known to be wrong, and
to ridicule ideas that are touted as true despite having little or no evidence to back them up.
You're living ina dream world idiot. All you've managed to do with your wannabee
ego is empty out a science forum. If anyone wants this forum to becomea friendly place where ideas are exchanged, people like you should get out of the nappies and perhaps pee off for a while whilst this place gets a chance to recover. That's it in a nutshell. if anything needs ridiculing, it's this idea that science has bullies to do a job for them.
Criticism is as constructive as praise. And praise can also be as destructive as criticism.
That's because your no more than a mindless thug. The worst image that science could ever promote.
Because they have questionable stances when it comes to science.
QUOTE
But I will say already that I expected many posts about science from someone who consider himself a member of the "forum mafia". After all, what is the role of this mafia? Just to intimidate?
In a nutshell:
- to seek out and ridicule proponents of scientific ideas that are known to be wrong, and
- to ridicule ideas that are touted as true despite having little or no evidence to back them up.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But I will say already that I expected many posts about science from someone who consider himself a member of the "forum mafia". After all, what is the role of this mafia? Just to intimidate? |
In a nutshell:
- to seek out and ridicule proponents of scientific ideas that are known to be wrong, and
- to ridicule ideas that are touted as true despite having little or no evidence to back them up.
From here on..
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=303243
Bullying or not?
Not.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 1 2008, 11:25 AM)
Hey maybe I'm Parsons.
Yeah, I could believe that. He too was a whiny tosser.
Yeah, I could believe that. He too was a whiny tosser.
QUOTE (N O M+Aug 1 2008, 04:38 AM)
Yeah, I could believe that. He too was a whiny tosser.
...... and a sick child molestor wannabe/stinky cardboard box inhabitant.
...... and a sick child molestor wannabe/stinky cardboard box inhabitant.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Aug 1 2008, 01:19 PM)
...And this will be my last communication to you...
Proof there is a god.
This post alone has converted me to creationism.
Proof there is a god.
This post alone has converted me to creationism.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 31 2008, 08:55 PM)
Proof there is a god.
This post alone has converted me to creationism.
No, you are already a creationist, Trippy. You believe in miraculous things like 'big bangs' from 'nothing'.
Your 'logic' is about the same as deadbeat's...though you just hate to have it pointed out to you. You still think it is something 'personal', but it isn't. You just prefer to see it that way, as this gives a perfect excuse to vent your anger.
'People' are still trying to insist that I have some kind of 'fanatical obsession' with Milo Wolff. This is further indication of how desperate this community of mindless thugs currently is. I have already stated that it would not matter 'who' proposed the WSM. I had come to similar conclusions before I even heard of WSM (see the sig.). Virtually all of the really ancient writings of Human beings allude to the same thing, only of course using deeply entrenched metaphor...and I'm not talking about 'bibles'. The very ancient (5000+ years old) 'I Ching' was initiated before the word 'God' was even invented. It studies the movement of what actually exists...'motion' of Space, and is entirely honest in its approach. It may quite justly be described as the very first scientific treatise that Humans ever formulated, albeit a very early 'attempt'.
When some of you children learn to study in a far wider spectrum than just 'math', you will start to understand the necessary correlations between our concepts and that which they attempt tp represent (empirical evidence). Until that glorious day, your narrow-minded approach will continue to leave you ranting and abusing whenever your shortcomings are exposed. In a public forum, you can expect this to be relatively frequently.
g.
This post alone has converted me to creationism.
No, you are already a creationist, Trippy. You believe in miraculous things like 'big bangs' from 'nothing'.
Your 'logic' is about the same as deadbeat's...though you just hate to have it pointed out to you. You still think it is something 'personal', but it isn't. You just prefer to see it that way, as this gives a perfect excuse to vent your anger.
'People' are still trying to insist that I have some kind of 'fanatical obsession' with Milo Wolff. This is further indication of how desperate this community of mindless thugs currently is. I have already stated that it would not matter 'who' proposed the WSM. I had come to similar conclusions before I even heard of WSM (see the sig.). Virtually all of the really ancient writings of Human beings allude to the same thing, only of course using deeply entrenched metaphor...and I'm not talking about 'bibles'. The very ancient (5000+ years old) 'I Ching' was initiated before the word 'God' was even invented. It studies the movement of what actually exists...'motion' of Space, and is entirely honest in its approach. It may quite justly be described as the very first scientific treatise that Humans ever formulated, albeit a very early 'attempt'.
When some of you children learn to study in a far wider spectrum than just 'math', you will start to understand the necessary correlations between our concepts and that which they attempt tp represent (empirical evidence). Until that glorious day, your narrow-minded approach will continue to leave you ranting and abusing whenever your shortcomings are exposed. In a public forum, you can expect this to be relatively frequently.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Aug 1 2008, 10:50 AM)
Until that glorious day, your narrow-minded approach will continue to leave you ranting and abusing whenever your shortcomings are exposed. In a public forum, you can expect this to be relatively frequently.
g.
This is why.
You seem to think you've got this monopoly on enlightenment. Maybe if you'd give others the respect for their ideas, you'd get some for yours.
Peace,
Ron
g.
This is why.
You seem to think you've got this monopoly on enlightenment. Maybe if you'd give others the respect for their ideas, you'd get some for yours.
Peace,
Ron
QUOTE (TheDoc+Aug 1 2008, 04:32 AM)
QUOTE
Because they have questionable stances when it comes to science.
Yes and you have questionable stances when it comes to your harrassment.
And what's with the "Lui Di Martino"? Just add it to the LIST.
Oh and Doc do you know both Mpants and BDW btw?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Because they have questionable stances when it comes to science. |
Yes and you have questionable stances when it comes to your harrassment.
And what's with the "Lui Di Martino"? Just add it to the LIST.
Oh and Doc do you know both Mpants and BDW btw?
In a nutshell:
to seek out and ridicule proponents of scientific ideas that are known to be wrong, and
to ridicule ideas that are touted as true despite having little or no evidence to back them up.
You're living ina dream world idiot. All you've managed to do with your wannabee
ego is empty out a science forum. If anyone wants this forum to becomea friendly place where ideas are exchanged, people like you should get out of the nappies and perhaps pee off for a while whilst this place gets a chance to recover. That's it in a nutshell. if anything needs ridiculing, it's this idea that science has bullies to do a job for them.
Criticism is as constructive as praise. And praise can also be as destructive as criticism.
QUOTE
Not
That's because your no more than a mindless thug. The worst image that science could ever promote.
Bonehead, your obsession with MP is adorable. What does it matter if BDW and MP are the same? Only one of them posts here anymore. I understand you need something to cling to, but could you try to find something of some worth?
That's because your no more than a mindless thug. The worst image that science could ever promote.
*CLANG CLANG CLANG* pot and kettle brigadeeeeeee *CLANG CLANG CLANG*
QUOTE
You're living ina dream world idiot. All you've managed to do with your wannabee
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're living ina dream world idiot. All you've managed to do with your wannabee |
That's because your no more than a mindless thug. The worst image that science could ever promote.
*CLANG CLANG CLANG* pot and kettle brigadeeeeeee *CLANG CLANG CLANG*
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 1 2008, 12:53 AM)
Good one dip****.
You don't possibly think that Parson's comments about BDW and Autism could possibly have done anything to provoke a reaction?
No, of course not.
The conversation went something along the lines of:
BDW: "I'm autistic, and I've got better social graces then you have."
MRP: "Stop using your autism as an excuse for being an ***hole."
BDW: "I'm not, i'm simply saying i've had to deal with these issues, and I've got better social graces then you."
MRP: "Stop using your autism as an excuse for being an ***hole."
BDW: "I'm not."
Me: "He really isn't."
MRP: "Stop using your autism as an excuse for being an ***hole, Trippy, you're just encouraging him to be complacent, and not doing him any favours. You're lying, and perpetrating a punblic conspiracy against me."
Nice job of taking things out of context though.
And as for knowing that Parsons lives in Kingston Ontario, Parsons made that abundantly clear on many occasions, it's nothing we've inferred.
Your reaction is a disgrace. People criticise me for reacting harshly to the thugs here, but your reaction to this Parsons is downright nasty. And nothing done about by physorg I assume.
You don't possibly think that Parson's comments about BDW and Autism could possibly have done anything to provoke a reaction?
No, of course not.
The conversation went something along the lines of:
BDW: "I'm autistic, and I've got better social graces then you have."
MRP: "Stop using your autism as an excuse for being an ***hole."
BDW: "I'm not, i'm simply saying i've had to deal with these issues, and I've got better social graces then you."
MRP: "Stop using your autism as an excuse for being an ***hole."
BDW: "I'm not."
Me: "He really isn't."
MRP: "Stop using your autism as an excuse for being an ***hole, Trippy, you're just encouraging him to be complacent, and not doing him any favours. You're lying, and perpetrating a punblic conspiracy against me."
Nice job of taking things out of context though.
And as for knowing that Parsons lives in Kingston Ontario, Parsons made that abundantly clear on many occasions, it's nothing we've inferred.
Your reaction is a disgrace. People criticise me for reacting harshly to the thugs here, but your reaction to this Parsons is downright nasty. And nothing done about by physorg I assume.
QUOTE (Ron+Aug 1 2008, 05:58 AM)
This is why.
You seem to think you've got this monopoly on enlightenment. Maybe if you'd give others the respect for their ideas, you'd get some for yours.
Peace,
Ron
No monopoly here! All you need to do is spend $15 on an "education" resource that should be free, and you will understand everything in the universe!!
You seem to think you've got this monopoly on enlightenment. Maybe if you'd give others the respect for their ideas, you'd get some for yours.
Peace,
Ron
No monopoly here! All you need to do is spend $15 on an "education" resource that should be free, and you will understand everything in the universe!!
QUOTE (Ron+Jul 31 2008, 11:58 PM)
This is why.
You seem to think you've got this monopoly on enlightenment. Maybe if you'd give others the respect for their ideas, you'd get some for yours.
Peace,
Ron
Absolutely untrue.
Where do I state I have 'monopoly on enlightenment'? ~ This is your biased opinion, Ron, your false assumption.
Here's a Real statement for you, that you may use as liberally as you wish...
I believe that all Human beings have the Natural-born right to try to understand what they are and how they exist. They therefore have the right to access whatever plausible information they see fit, in order to realise their motivations toward this endeavour.
In this regard, WSM is merely 'more information'...
In passing on this information, I am affording all other human beings the respect due to them in their personal endeavours to discern Truth from as many plausible sources as possible.
It can be seen from this that I am not in the process of 'seeking respect for my ideas'. I am very happy with my understanding. Maybe if you gave a REAL SCIENTIST like Milo Wolff the respect he RIGHTFULLY DESERVES, you could find some happiness too? ~ Instead of trying to garner 'support' from the local thuggery. I would far prefer that people respect their own ideas, but the showing on here is that they do not actually have much to be respectful of!
True peace,
g.
You seem to think you've got this monopoly on enlightenment. Maybe if you'd give others the respect for their ideas, you'd get some for yours.
Peace,
Ron
Absolutely untrue.
Where do I state I have 'monopoly on enlightenment'? ~ This is your biased opinion, Ron, your false assumption.
Here's a Real statement for you, that you may use as liberally as you wish...
I believe that all Human beings have the Natural-born right to try to understand what they are and how they exist. They therefore have the right to access whatever plausible information they see fit, in order to realise their motivations toward this endeavour.
In this regard, WSM is merely 'more information'...
In passing on this information, I am affording all other human beings the respect due to them in their personal endeavours to discern Truth from as many plausible sources as possible.
It can be seen from this that I am not in the process of 'seeking respect for my ideas'. I am very happy with my understanding. Maybe if you gave a REAL SCIENTIST like Milo Wolff the respect he RIGHTFULLY DESERVES, you could find some happiness too? ~ Instead of trying to garner 'support' from the local thuggery. I would far prefer that people respect their own ideas, but the showing on here is that they do not actually have much to be respectful of!
True peace,
g.
A right to pay $15 dollars for a book on an idea that isn't taken seriously by any academic institution?
So is DavidD. And Farsight.
QUOTE
It can be seen from this that I am not in the process of 'seeking respect for my ideas'. I am very happy with my understanding.
So is DavidD. And Farsight.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 1 2008, 11:19 PM)
Your reaction is a disgrace. People criticise me for reacting harshly to the thugs here, but your reaction to this Parsons is downright nasty. And nothing done about by physorg I assume.
How did I know that you'd say that.
Did you bother trying to understand the history?
Have you bothered looking into MRP's continual antagonism of many other members?
And yeah, action was taken by Physorg - MRP eventually got himself banned for his disgusting behaviour.
How did I know that you'd say that.
Did you bother trying to understand the history?
Have you bothered looking into MRP's continual antagonism of many other members?
And yeah, action was taken by Physorg - MRP eventually got himself banned for his disgusting behaviour.
QUOTE (excaza+Aug 1 2008, 11:16 AM)
Bonehead, your obsession with MP is adorable. What does it matter if BDW and MP are the same? Only one of them posts here anymore. I understand you need something to cling to, but could you try to find something of some worth?
*CLANG CLANG CLANG* pot and kettle brigadeeeeeee *CLANG CLANG CLANG*
You reckon I'm obsessed with it do you? Even though I've said to him on a number of occassions I am not, and suggested he has used the "squish" accusation as a way to avoid the focus on him. And I asked how he even knew this Squish (Squeeze), because I've checked and he has had no dealings with that particular person.
excaza, you have shown you wouldn't know what worth is at this stage of your life.
You reckon I'm obsessed with it do you? Even though I've said to him on a number of occassions I am not, and suggested he has used the "squish" accusation as a way to avoid the focus on him. And I asked how he even knew this Squish (Squeeze), because I've checked and he has had no dealings with that particular person.
excaza, you have shown you wouldn't know what worth is at this stage of your life.
*CLANG CLANG CLANG* pot and kettle brigadeeeeeee *CLANG CLANG CLANG*
I see, you are suggesting that both the forum mafia/Doc and me are mindless thugs?
Yes, because nearly every post you make consists of "Do you know BDW/MP" "Are you BDW MP?" "I LOVE BDW" "I LOVE MP" as if BDW being MP validates any of your claims or helps you in ANY way. Newsflash: It doesn't.
Then you say things like this:
Yes, because nearly every post you make consists of "Do you know BDW/MP" "Are you BDW MP?" "I LOVE BDW" "I LOVE MP" as if BDW being MP validates any of your claims or helps you in ANY way. Newsflash: It doesn't.
Then you say things like this:
excaza, you have shown you wouldn't know what worth is at this stage of your life.
Excuse me? *** you.
Um...no? The expression "pot calling kettle black" doesn't mean that the kettle is actually guilty of whatever the pot is saying, only that the pot is.
I seem to recall that at least two of his warnings were for abusing other members of this forum (including myself).
I thought only moderators were supposed to know what the warnings are for?
g.
Because in March, on that date, I hacked MRP's account, and made that post on his behalf, purely with the intent of deceiving people (because I suspect you can't figure it out for yourself, I'm being sarcasticc and dramatic).
Who can tell, nowadays?
Are you often 'sarcasticc and dramatic'?
g.
OMG. Two warnings for calling someone a twit. Played right into NOM's hands eh Parson? The word "twit" carries far less insult value than the word idiot.
Now, where could that "farewell" post from BDW be. Careful Jeremey Fisher and Fred A Wolf.
Trippy, this place is ridiculous. Nothing would be more justified than teaching it and those that have made it what it is a proper lesson. If you need to swan around like rats, then people can at least keep you on the move, and make you look for other places to turn into sewers. You have my permission to quote that in any publication you may wish to bring out on how I am no better than what I criticise. We can see about that.
OMG. Two warnings for calling someone a twit. Played right into NOM's hands eh Parson? The word "twit" carries far less insult value than the word idiot.
Now, where could that "farewell" post from BDW be. Careful Jeremey Fisher and Fred A Wolf.
Trippy, this place is ridiculous. Nothing would be more justified than teaching it and those that have made it what it is a proper lesson. If you need to swan around like rats, then people can at least keep you on the move, and make you look for other places to turn into sewers. You have my permission to quote that in any publication you may wish to bring out on how I am no better than what I criticise. We can see about that.
You won't find this post, either...
But even though I reported it, and it was subsequently taken away, there was no warning for it.
Actually, this was about the same time as the 'mafia' were 'intelligently designed'.
g.
*CLANG CLANG CLANG* pot and kettle brigadeeeeeee *CLANG CLANG CLANG*
QUOTE
Bonehead, your obsession with MP is adorable. What does it matter if BDW and MP are the same? Only one of them posts here anymore. I understand you need something to cling to, but could you try to find something of some worth?
You reckon I'm obsessed with it do you? Even though I've said to him on a number of occassions I am not, and suggested he has used the "squish" accusation as a way to avoid the focus on him. And I asked how he even knew this Squish (Squeeze), because I've checked and he has had no dealings with that particular person.
excaza, you have shown you wouldn't know what worth is at this stage of your life.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Bonehead, your obsession with MP is adorable. What does it matter if BDW and MP are the same? Only one of them posts here anymore. I understand you need something to cling to, but could you try to find something of some worth? |
You reckon I'm obsessed with it do you? Even though I've said to him on a number of occassions I am not, and suggested he has used the "squish" accusation as a way to avoid the focus on him. And I asked how he even knew this Squish (Squeeze), because I've checked and he has had no dealings with that particular person.
excaza, you have shown you wouldn't know what worth is at this stage of your life.
*CLANG CLANG CLANG* pot and kettle brigadeeeeeee *CLANG CLANG CLANG*
I see, you are suggesting that both the forum mafia/Doc and me are mindless thugs?
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 1 2008, 11:24 AM)
How did I know that you'd say that.
Did you bother trying to understand the history?
Have you bothered looking into MRP's continual antagonism of many other members?
And yeah, action was taken by Physorg - MRP eventually got himself banned for his disgusting behaviour.
Oh yes, I think I understand the history, and I think I am understanding the attitudes of the forum mafia too. And good for physorg for banning the wrong person. Perhaps someone should try and ban physorg in that case.
Did you bother trying to understand the history?
Have you bothered looking into MRP's continual antagonism of many other members?
And yeah, action was taken by Physorg - MRP eventually got himself banned for his disgusting behaviour.
Oh yes, I think I understand the history, and I think I am understanding the attitudes of the forum mafia too. And good for physorg for banning the wrong person. Perhaps someone should try and ban physorg in that case.
QUOTE
You reckon I'm obsessed with it do you?
Yes, because nearly every post you make consists of "Do you know BDW/MP" "Are you BDW MP?" "I LOVE BDW" "I LOVE MP" as if BDW being MP validates any of your claims or helps you in ANY way. Newsflash: It doesn't.
Then you say things like this:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You reckon I'm obsessed with it do you? |
Yes, because nearly every post you make consists of "Do you know BDW/MP" "Are you BDW MP?" "I LOVE BDW" "I LOVE MP" as if BDW being MP validates any of your claims or helps you in ANY way. Newsflash: It doesn't.
Then you say things like this:
excaza, you have shown you wouldn't know what worth is at this stage of your life.
Excuse me? *** you.
QUOTE
I see, you are suggesting that both the forum mafia/Doc and me are mindless thugs?
Um...no? The expression "pot calling kettle black" doesn't mean that the kettle is actually guilty of whatever the pot is saying, only that the pot is.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 1 2008, 11:31 PM)
Oh yes, I think I understand the history, and I think I am understanding the attitudes of the forum mafia too. And good for physorg for banning the wrong person. Perhaps someone should try and ban physorg in that case.
You really are a conceited idiot aren't you?
MRP was banned for the right reasons.
I seem to recall that at least two of his warnings were for abusing other members of this forum (including myself).
You really are a dishonest cretin.
If you had even attempted to understand the history, you would understand that the problems between me and Parsons started when he took a post that was not even directed at him, out of context and began abusing me for it.
Get a grip you hack.
You really are a conceited idiot aren't you?
MRP was banned for the right reasons.
I seem to recall that at least two of his warnings were for abusing other members of this forum (including myself).
You really are a dishonest cretin.
If you had even attempted to understand the history, you would understand that the problems between me and Parsons started when he took a post that was not even directed at him, out of context and began abusing me for it.
Get a grip you hack.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 1 2008, 12:38 AM)
I seem to recall that at least two of his warnings were for abusing other members of this forum (including myself).
I thought only moderators were supposed to know what the warnings are for?
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Aug 1 2008, 06:41 AM)
I thought only moderators were supposed to know what the warnings are for?
g.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Aug 1 2008, 11:41 PM)
I thought only moderators were supposed to know what the warnings are for?
g.
Is there like some sort of pill you take to be this stupid, or is it a natural talent that you have?
First off, you're wrong, the person whos has been warned can access what they have been warned for.
Secondly - Should I link you to some of the posts where MRP complained repeatedly about what he had been warned for?
Sheesh, nice try, but i'm sure even you can do a better job then this.
g.
Is there like some sort of pill you take to be this stupid, or is it a natural talent that you have?
First off, you're wrong, the person whos has been warned can access what they have been warned for.
Secondly - Should I link you to some of the posts where MRP complained repeatedly about what he had been warned for?
Sheesh, nice try, but i'm sure even you can do a better job then this.
QUOTE (excaza+Aug 1 2008, 11:45 PM)
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=316606
Weird what a simple search can turn up.
Never mind.
Excaza beat me to it.
Weird what a simple search can turn up.
Never mind.
Excaza beat me to it.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 1 2008, 12:46 AM)
Is there like some sort of pill you take to be this stupid, or is it a natural talent that you have?
First off, you're wrong, the person whos has been warned can access what they have been warned for.
Secondly - Should I link you to some of the posts where MRP complained repeatedly about what he had been warned for?
Sheesh, nice try, but i'm sure even you can do a better job then this.
You're right.
I can just ignore your constant lies and deceptions.
g.
First off, you're wrong, the person whos has been warned can access what they have been warned for.
Secondly - Should I link you to some of the posts where MRP complained repeatedly about what he had been warned for?
Sheesh, nice try, but i'm sure even you can do a better job then this.
You're right.
I can just ignore your constant lies and deceptions.
g.
What constant lies and deceptions would those be? Provide proof please.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Aug 1 2008, 11:48 PM)
You're right.
I can just ignore your constant lies and deceptions.
g.
Right...
Because in March, on that date, I hacked MRP's account, and made that post on his behalf, purely with the intent of deceiving people (because I suspect you can't figure it out for yourself, I'm being sarcasticc and dramatic).
It's a matter of black and white, it's all there in public record.
I can just ignore your constant lies and deceptions.
g.
Right...
Because in March, on that date, I hacked MRP's account, and made that post on his behalf, purely with the intent of deceiving people (because I suspect you can't figure it out for yourself, I'm being sarcasticc and dramatic).
It's a matter of black and white, it's all there in public record.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 1 2008, 12:56 AM)
Because in March, on that date, I hacked MRP's account, and made that post on his behalf, purely with the intent of deceiving people (because I suspect you can't figure it out for yourself, I'm being sarcasticc and dramatic).
Who can tell, nowadays?
Are you often 'sarcasticc and dramatic'?
g.
QUOTE (excaza+Aug 1 2008, 06:52 AM)
What constant lies and deceptions would those be? Provide proof please.
C'mon, don't be shy.
C'mon, don't be shy.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Aug 1 2008, 11:58 PM)
Who can tell, nowadays?
Are you often 'sarcasticc and dramatic'?
g.
I right, so I demonstrate how ridiculous your hypothesis that I was lying about MRP complaining about his warnings and ban, by elaborating the on;y way it could be possible, and that's the best comeback you've got?
Are you often 'sarcasticc and dramatic'?
g.
I right, so I demonstrate how ridiculous your hypothesis that I was lying about MRP complaining about his warnings and ban, by elaborating the on;y way it could be possible, and that's the best comeback you've got?
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 1 2008, 01:03 AM)
I right, so I demonstrate how ridiculous your hypothesis that I was lying about MRP complaining about his warnings and ban, by elaborating the on;y way it could be possible, and that's the best comeback you've got?
"Cranks are always right" ~ Trout.
'Comeback'? Are you claiming that I am Rod Stewart now?
g.
"Cranks are always right" ~ Trout.
'Comeback'? Are you claiming that I am Rod Stewart now?
g.
QUOTE
Mr. Robin Parsons
Saved warn logs: Mr. Robin Parsons
Warned by Notes
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Feb 28 2008, 03:01 PM
Added to warn level threatening, posting personal info
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Dec 3 2007, 12:05 PM
Added to warn level once again, calling someone 'twit' is not allowed!
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Dec 2 2007, 01:47 PM
Added to warn level "Twit" is not a word that should be used here.
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Nov 12 2007, 07:18 AM
Added to warn level too often offtopic, non-constructive
Saved warn logs: Mr. Robin Parsons
Warned by Notes
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Feb 28 2008, 03:01 PM
Added to warn level threatening, posting personal info
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Dec 3 2007, 12:05 PM
Added to warn level once again, calling someone 'twit' is not allowed!
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Dec 2 2007, 01:47 PM
Added to warn level "Twit" is not a word that should be used here.
PhysOrg Moderator Warned on Nov 12 2007, 07:18 AM
Added to warn level too often offtopic, non-constructive
OMG. Two warnings for calling someone a twit. Played right into NOM's hands eh Parson? The word "twit" carries far less insult value than the word idiot.
Now, where could that "farewell" post from BDW be. Careful Jeremey Fisher and Fred A Wolf.
Trippy, this place is ridiculous. Nothing would be more justified than teaching it and those that have made it what it is a proper lesson. If you need to swan around like rats, then people can at least keep you on the move, and make you look for other places to turn into sewers. You have my permission to quote that in any publication you may wish to bring out on how I am no better than what I criticise. We can see about that.
Where have you provided assistance to people asking science questions?
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 1 2008, 01:12 AM)
OMG. Two warnings for calling someone a twit. Played right into NOM's hands eh Parson? The word "twit" carries far less insult value than the word idiot.
Now, where could that "farewell" post from BDW be. Careful Jeremey Fisher and Fred A Wolf.
Trippy, this place is ridiculous. Nothing would be more justified than teaching it and those that have made it what it is a proper lesson. If you need to swan around like rats, then people can at least keep you on the move, and make you look for other places to turn into sewers. You have my permission to quote that in any publication you may wish to bring out on how I am no better than what I criticise. We can see about that.
You won't find this post, either...
QUOTE
QUOTE (Physfan @ Mar 4 2007, 09:21 PM)
*rsehole more like! Sanctimonious pr*ck.
Physfan
*rsehole more like! Sanctimonious pr*ck.
Physfan
But even though I reported it, and it was subsequently taken away, there was no warning for it.
Actually, this was about the same time as the 'mafia' were 'intelligently designed'.
g.
Obviously, the FM is the moderating team.
Got that proof yet, g?
Got that proof yet, g?
QUOTE (excaza+Aug 1 2008, 11:34 AM)
Yes, because nearly every post you make consists of "Do you know BDW/MP" "Are you BDW MP?" "I LOVE BDW" "I LOVE MP" as if BDW being MP validates any of your claims or helps you in ANY way. Newsflash: It doesn't.
Then you say things like this:
Um...no? The expression "pot calling kettle black" doesn't mean that the kettle is actually guilty of whatever the pot is saying, only that the pot is.
Well, why are you not equally asking why BDW keeps accusing me of being a sockpuppet? And the only person I've read saying I love you to BDW here is Tikay.
And yes, of course BDW being Mpants validates one of my claims. Are you not reading???????
I'm not a mob excaza. Thinking this place is allowing bullying to occur is something I have no reason whatsoever to doubt.
Then you say things like this:
Um...no? The expression "pot calling kettle black" doesn't mean that the kettle is actually guilty of whatever the pot is saying, only that the pot is.
Well, why are you not equally asking why BDW keeps accusing me of being a sockpuppet? And the only person I've read saying I love you to BDW here is Tikay.
And yes, of course BDW being Mpants validates one of my claims. Are you not reading???????
I'm not a mob excaza. Thinking this place is allowing bullying to occur is something I have no reason whatsoever to doubt.
QUOTE (excaza+Aug 1 2008, 12:13 PM)
Where have you provided assistance to people asking science questions?
What's that got to do with the point I just made to Trippy?
What's that got to do with the point I just made to Trippy?
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 1 2008, 07:39 AM)
What's that got to do with the point I just made to Trippy?
It's just a question
edit: My apologies, that quote shouldn't have been in there.
Ok, it validates your claim that BDW is MP. So what?
Give 'em enough rope!
g.
It's just a question
edit: My apologies, that quote shouldn't have been in there.
QUOTE (bonehead+)
I'm not a mob excaza.
I'm proud. Relevance?
I'm proud. Relevance?
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 1 2008, 07:31 AM)
Well, why are you not equally asking why BDW keeps accusing me of being a sockpuppet? And the only person I've read saying I love you to BDW here is Tikay.
Because you are obsessing over it, he is not. You repeatedly raise the question in posts where it is completely unrelated to in order to attempt to shift the topic away from your hypocrisy, arrogance, and habit of making accusations and refusing to provide proof when prompted.
Ok, it validates your claim that BDW is MP. So what?
Because you are obsessing over it, he is not. You repeatedly raise the question in posts where it is completely unrelated to in order to attempt to shift the topic away from your hypocrisy, arrogance, and habit of making accusations and refusing to provide proof when prompted.
QUOTE
And yes, of course BDW being Mpants validates one of my claims. Are you not reading???????
Ok, it validates your claim that BDW is MP. So what?
QUOTE (excaza+Aug 1 2008, 02:06 AM)
Ok, it validates your claim that BDW is MP. So what?
Give 'em enough rope!
g.
odd... Bonehead said this:
Which is true. He's actually suggested that, multiple times.
Then, he responds to somethin TheDoc said...
Which is true. He's actually suggested that, multiple times.
Then, he responds to somethin TheDoc said...
QUOTE
Even though I've said to him on a number of occassions I am not, and suggested he has used the "squish" accusation as a way to avoid the focus on him.
Which is true. He's actually suggested that, multiple times.
Then, he responds to somethin TheDoc said...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Even though I've said to him on a number of occassions I am not, and suggested he has used the "squish" accusation as a way to avoid the focus on him. |
Which is true. He's actually suggested that, multiple times.
Then, he responds to somethin TheDoc said...
QUOTE (TheDoc+)
Because they have questionable stances when it comes to science.
Yes and you have questionable stances when it comes to your harrassment.
And what's with the "Lui Di Martino"? Just add it to the LIST.
Oh and Doc do you know both Mpants and BDW btw?
Cue the march o the Pot an Kettle Brigage...
You're kidding. I can back up my accusations about mob rule, and I can back up my claim that BDW is Mpants. And I've said at least half a dozen times that it's become a big deal becuase he is trying to weasle out of it. And he does that by trying to counter act the claim by shifting the focus on me. That is what I f9nd ha sto be countered. And with the help of the emerging voices here, well done physorg for shifting the attention away from the obvious.
You're kidding. I can back up my accusations about mob rule, and I can back up my claim that BDW is Mpants. And I've said at least half a dozen times that it's become a big deal becuase he is trying to weasle out of it. And he does that by trying to counter act the claim by shifting the focus on me. That is what I f9nd ha sto be countered. And with the help of the emerging voices here, well done physorg for shifting the attention away from the obvious.
Ok, it validates your claim that BDW is MP. So what?
So what? Well, in the real world it means hardly anything. At physorg at the moment, it means he could have spared a lot of correspondance. It's that little tin of baken beans that , when removed, leads to the other tins collapsing.
Why are you not questioning his stance that he won't answer with a yes or no, about this issue? I answered his latest list. I didn't answer the one you keep bringing up, precisely because of the shift of attention he wishes to create now. The day he answers with a YES or NO, I will go back to that list and answer all the 20 odd points.
Yes and you have questionable stances when it comes to your harrassment.
And what's with the "Lui Di Martino"? Just add it to the LIST.
Oh and Doc do you know both Mpants and BDW btw?
Cue the march o the Pot an Kettle Brigage...
QUOTE (excaza+Aug 1 2008, 01:06 PM)
QUOTE
Because you are obsessing over it, he is not. You repeatedly raise the question in posts where it is completely unrelated to in order to attempt to shift the topic away from your hypocrisy, arrogance, and habit of making accusations and refusing to provide proof when prompted.
You're kidding. I can back up my accusations about mob rule, and I can back up my claim that BDW is Mpants. And I've said at least half a dozen times that it's become a big deal becuase he is trying to weasle out of it. And he does that by trying to counter act the claim by shifting the focus on me. That is what I f9nd ha sto be countered. And with the help of the emerging voices here, well done physorg for shifting the attention away from the obvious.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Because you are obsessing over it, he is not. You repeatedly raise the question in posts where it is completely unrelated to in order to attempt to shift the topic away from your hypocrisy, arrogance, and habit of making accusations and refusing to provide proof when prompted. |
You're kidding. I can back up my accusations about mob rule, and I can back up my claim that BDW is Mpants. And I've said at least half a dozen times that it's become a big deal becuase he is trying to weasle out of it. And he does that by trying to counter act the claim by shifting the focus on me. That is what I f9nd ha sto be countered. And with the help of the emerging voices here, well done physorg for shifting the attention away from the obvious.
Ok, it validates your claim that BDW is MP. So what?
So what? Well, in the real world it means hardly anything. At physorg at the moment, it means he could have spared a lot of correspondance. It's that little tin of baken beans that , when removed, leads to the other tins collapsing.
Why are you not questioning his stance that he won't answer with a yes or no, about this issue? I answered his latest list. I didn't answer the one you keep bringing up, precisely because of the shift of attention he wishes to create now. The day he answers with a YES or NO, I will go back to that list and answer all the 20 odd points.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 1 2008, 01:22 PM)
odd... Bonehead said this:
Which is true. He's actually suggested that, multiple times.
Then, he responds to somethin TheDoc said...
Yes and you have questionable stances when it comes to your harrassment.
And what's with the "Lui Di Martino"? Just add it to the LIST.
Oh and Doc do you know both Mpants and BDW btw?[/QUOTE]
Cue the march o the Pot an Kettle Brigage...
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. It's simple, is the doc prepared to say he doesn't believe the proof that newguy posted about you, and therefore he believes BDW and you are two different people. And I do realize it is like asking a member of the mafia if he has a real violin in that case he's carrying.
Which is true. He's actually suggested that, multiple times.
Then, he responds to somethin TheDoc said...
Yes and you have questionable stances when it comes to your harrassment.
And what's with the "Lui Di Martino"? Just add it to the LIST.
Oh and Doc do you know both Mpants and BDW btw?[/QUOTE]
Cue the march o the Pot an Kettle Brigage...
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. It's simple, is the doc prepared to say he doesn't believe the proof that newguy posted about you, and therefore he believes BDW and you are two different people. And I do realize it is like asking a member of the mafia if he has a real violin in that case he's carrying.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 1 2008, 02:13 PM)
You're kidding. I can back up my accusations about mob rule,
Then do so.
With inconclusive evidence from a highly biased source.
With inconclusive evidence from a highly biased source.
And I've said at least half a dozen times that it's become a big deal becuase he is trying to weasle out of it.
I refuse to answer one way or another, because it don't relate to the issue at hand: Bullyin. That's not weaselin, that's stayin focused.
Because yer behavior relates to the issue at hand: Bullyin.
Besides which, I've already (look at the post above yers) shown that you engage in that exact form o misdirection which ya accuse me of...
Because yer behavior relates to the issue at hand: Bullyin.
Besides which, I've already (look at the post above yers) shown that you engage in that exact form o misdirection which ya accuse me of...
That is what I f9nd ha sto be countered.
Oooh, he's gettin mad!
Yep!
Yep!
At physorg at the moment, it means he could have spared a lot of correspondance.
So that's it, then? I coulda posted less?
Not that I know what excaza's thinkin, but my guess would be "Cause it don't matter."
Not that I know what excaza's thinkin, but my guess would be "Cause it don't matter."
I answered his latest list.
Wrong!
Huh? That makes no sense...
Huh? That makes no sense...
I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
That yer usin yer accusations o me bein BDW to distract from the real issue: Yer behavior. Idiot....
Will do
Will do
With inconclusive evidence from a highly biased source.
No more biased than those without the guts to simply say it's the truth about you. Do your moral principles include the truth?
Yeah, real budding Bill Clinton there.
Yeah, real budding Bill Clinton there.
That yer usin yer accusations o me bein BDW to distract from the real issue: Yer behavior. Idiot....
Oh yes my behavior. I've spotted bullying since I was a kid at school. I know all about the games they play when their actions are put under the spotlight.
The first card is usually "you're a hipocrite", then "practice what you preach" then "not us, it's him, there's lots of us to witness the fact", and on and on.
Poor little Johnny might even get into trouble by the teachers eh? Off the mob go to get someone else into trouble.
Bullying.
Bullying.
All you've managed to do with your wannabee
ego
Two things:
Unfortunately for you, the FM is not the cause of PhysOrg's low attendance. Ask yourself, "Why are some of the better posters like mr_homm, rpenner and DuzmA rarely around now?"
Unfortunately for you, the FM is not the cause of PhysOrg's low attendance. Ask yourself, "Why are some of the better posters like mr_homm, rpenner and DuzmA rarely around now?"
If anyone wants this forum to becomea friendly place where ideas are exchanged, people like you should get out of the nappies and perhaps pee off for a while whilst this place gets a chance to recover.
If the cranks weren't so persisent in their arrogance (or if this forum was more heavily moderated) the FM would not exist, period.
Wrong.
Wrong.
if anything needs ridiculing, it's this idea that science has bullies to do a job for them.
Members of the FM attack the cranks because they feel the cranks should be ridiculed, not to "protect" mainstream science from ideas like WSM or Relativity+.
Two more things:
Two more things:
Here's a Real statement for you, that you may use as liberally as you wish...
<rants about Truth, WSM and Millo Wolff snipped>
This thread has nothing to do with Millo Wolff, please drop the issue and take it back to the appropriate place.
Then do so.
QUOTE
and I can back up my claim that BDW is Mpants.
With inconclusive evidence from a highly biased source.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and I can back up my claim that BDW is Mpants. |
With inconclusive evidence from a highly biased source.
And I've said at least half a dozen times that it's become a big deal becuase he is trying to weasle out of it.
I refuse to answer one way or another, because it don't relate to the issue at hand: Bullyin. That's not weaselin, that's stayin focused.
QUOTE
And he does that by trying to counter act the claim by shifting the focus on me.
Because yer behavior relates to the issue at hand: Bullyin.
Besides which, I've already (look at the post above yers) shown that you engage in that exact form o misdirection which ya accuse me of...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And he does that by trying to counter act the claim by shifting the focus on me. |
Because yer behavior relates to the issue at hand: Bullyin.
Besides which, I've already (look at the post above yers) shown that you engage in that exact form o misdirection which ya accuse me of...
That is what I f9nd ha sto be countered.
Oooh, he's gettin mad!
QUOTE
So what? Well, in the real world it means hardly anything.
Yep!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So what? Well, in the real world it means hardly anything. |
Yep!
At physorg at the moment, it means he could have spared a lot of correspondance.
So that's it, then? I coulda posted less?
QUOTE
Why are you not questioning his stance that he won't answer with a yes or no, about this issue?
Not that I know what excaza's thinkin, but my guess would be "Cause it don't matter."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why are you not questioning his stance that he won't answer with a yes or no, about this issue? |
Not that I know what excaza's thinkin, but my guess would be "Cause it don't matter."
I answered his latest list.
Wrong!
QUOTE
I didn't answer the one you keep bringing up, precisely because of the shift of attention he wishes to create now.
Huh? That makes no sense...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I didn't answer the one you keep bringing up, precisely because of the shift of attention he wishes to create now. |
Huh? That makes no sense...
I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
That yer usin yer accusations o me bein BDW to distract from the real issue: Yer behavior. Idiot....
QUOTE
Then do so.
Will do
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then do so. |
Will do
With inconclusive evidence from a highly biased source.
No more biased than those without the guts to simply say it's the truth about you. Do your moral principles include the truth?
QUOTE
I refuse to answer one way or another, because it don't relate to the issue at hand: Bullyin. That's not weaselin, that's stayin focused.
Yeah, real budding Bill Clinton there.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I refuse to answer one way or another, because it don't relate to the issue at hand: Bullyin. That's not weaselin, that's stayin focused. |
Yeah, real budding Bill Clinton there.
That yer usin yer accusations o me bein BDW to distract from the real issue: Yer behavior. Idiot....
Oh yes my behavior. I've spotted bullying since I was a kid at school. I know all about the games they play when their actions are put under the spotlight.
The first card is usually "you're a hipocrite", then "practice what you preach" then "not us, it's him, there's lots of us to witness the fact", and on and on.
Poor little Johnny might even get into trouble by the teachers eh? Off the mob go to get someone else into trouble.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Aug 1 2008, 09:13 AM)
Why are you not questioning his stance that he won't answer with a yes or no, about this issue?
Because it's irrelevant to your crusade against the mean ol' bullies. What is not irrelevant, however, are your baseless accusations against his character and personal life, and subsequent refusal to provide the evidence behind them. You are called a hypocrite because you are a hypocrite, and "practice what you preach" goes hand in hand with it. You come here to crusade against bullying and name-calling, yet you resort to the same bullying and name-calling, insisting it will solve the problem. Compounding an issue doesn't solve it, in case you hadn't noticed.
Because it's irrelevant to your crusade against the mean ol' bullies. What is not irrelevant, however, are your baseless accusations against his character and personal life, and subsequent refusal to provide the evidence behind them. You are called a hypocrite because you are a hypocrite, and "practice what you preach" goes hand in hand with it. You come here to crusade against bullying and name-calling, yet you resort to the same bullying and name-calling, insisting it will solve the problem. Compounding an issue doesn't solve it, in case you hadn't noticed.
QUOTE (excaza+Aug 1 2008, 03:59 PM)
Because it's irrelevant to your crusade against the mean ol' bullies. What is not irrelevant, however, are your baseless accusations against his character and personal life, and subsequent refusal to provide the evidence behind them. You are called a hypocrite because you are a hypocrite, and "practice what you preach" goes hand in hand with it. You come here to crusade against bullying and name-calling, yet you resort to the same bullying and name-calling, insisting it will solve the problem. Compounding an issue doesn't solve it, in case you hadn't noticed.
Take it up with the board.
And you have no comments about the answers I gave BDW?
In my country, character is judged by unwillingness to admit an obvious truth.
In science the best of theories fall when something about them is falsified. I agree with Raphie that physics has a social connection too.
Take it up with the board.
And you have no comments about the answers I gave BDW?
In my country, character is judged by unwillingness to admit an obvious truth.
In science the best of theories fall when something about them is falsified. I agree with Raphie that physics has a social connection too.
QUOTE
You're living ina dream world idiot.
Bullying.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're living ina dream world idiot. |
Bullying.
All you've managed to do with your wannabee
ego
Two things:
- I don't have an ego
- Bullying.
QUOTE
is empty out a science forum.
Unfortunately for you, the FM is not the cause of PhysOrg's low attendance. Ask yourself, "Why are some of the better posters like mr_homm, rpenner and DuzmA rarely around now?"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| is empty out a science forum. |
Unfortunately for you, the FM is not the cause of PhysOrg's low attendance. Ask yourself, "Why are some of the better posters like mr_homm, rpenner and DuzmA rarely around now?"
If anyone wants this forum to becomea friendly place where ideas are exchanged, people like you should get out of the nappies and perhaps pee off for a while whilst this place gets a chance to recover.
If the cranks weren't so persisent in their arrogance (or if this forum was more heavily moderated) the FM would not exist, period.
QUOTE
That's it in a nutshell.
Wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That's it in a nutshell. |
Wrong.
if anything needs ridiculing, it's this idea that science has bullies to do a job for them.
Members of the FM attack the cranks because they feel the cranks should be ridiculed, not to "protect" mainstream science from ideas like WSM or Relativity+.
QUOTE
That's because your no more than a mindless thug.
Two more things:
- Do dredge up a few examples of me being thuggish and bullying others
- While we're on the subject...you're bullying me again!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That's because your no more than a mindless thug. |
Two more things:
- Do dredge up a few examples of me being thuggish and bullying others
- While we're on the subject...you're bullying me again!
Here's a Real statement for you, that you may use as liberally as you wish...
<rants about Truth, WSM and Millo Wolff snipped>
This thread has nothing to do with Millo Wolff, please drop the issue and take it back to the appropriate place.
QUOTE (Boneidol+)
I see, you are suggesting that both the forum mafia/Doc and me are mindless thugs?
Nice shot at a strawman. He was not suggesting this.
What he's getting at is you're trying to shift the focus away from you by asking me if I knew BDW/MjolnirPants.
What he's getting at is you're trying to shift the focus away from you by asking me if I knew BDW/MjolnirPants.
It's simple, is the doc prepared to say he doesn't believe the proof that newguy posted about you, and therefore he believes BDW and you are two different people.
What does this have to do with your seemingly hypocritical crusade against the FM?
Oh, wait. Nothing.
Bullying.
Two things:
Unfortunately for you, the FM is not the cause of PhysOrg's low attendance. Ask yourself, "Why are some of the better posters like mr_homm, rpenner and DuzmA rarely around now?"
If the cranks weren't so persisent in their arrogance (or if this forum was more heavily moderated) the FM would not exist, period.
Wrong.
Members of the FM attack the cranks because they feel the cranks should be ridiculed, not to "protect" mainstream science from ideas like WSM or Relativity+.
Two more things:
Nice shot at a strawman. He was not suggesting this.
What he's getting at is you're trying to shift the focus away from you by asking me if I knew BDW/MjolnirPants.
What does this have to do with your seemingly hypocritical crusade against the FM?
Oh, wait. Nothing.
Doc Doc, who's there? Oh look, a sewer rat. You'll need another sewer soon son.
Nice shot at a strawman. He was not suggesting this.
QUOTE
I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
What he's getting at is you're trying to shift the focus away from you by asking me if I knew BDW/MjolnirPants.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm not sure what you are getting at here. |
What he's getting at is you're trying to shift the focus away from you by asking me if I knew BDW/MjolnirPants.
It's simple, is the doc prepared to say he doesn't believe the proof that newguy posted about you, and therefore he believes BDW and you are two different people.
What does this have to do with your seemingly hypocritical crusade against the FM?
Oh, wait. Nothing.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Aug 1 2008, 07:00 AM)
Nothing.
What do you mean 'nothing'!!!!!!!!!?
You waste all that space, and all you can say is 'nothing'!????
Wow, just wow!!!!!!!!
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Thom Yorke!
g.
What do you mean 'nothing'!!!!!!!!!?
You waste all that space, and all you can say is 'nothing'!????
Wow, just wow!!!!!!!!
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff Milo Wolff
Thom Yorke!
g.
At least you're posting condensed versions now.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Aug 1 2008, 06:00 PM)
Bullying.
Two things:
- I don't have an ego
- Bullying.
Unfortunately for you, the FM is not the cause of PhysOrg's low attendance. Ask yourself, "Why are some of the better posters like mr_homm, rpenner and DuzmA rarely around now?"
If the cranks weren't so persisent in their arrogance (or if this forum was more heavily moderated) the FM would not exist, period.
Wrong.
Members of the FM attack the cranks because they feel the cranks should be ridiculed, not to "protect" mainstream science from ideas like WSM or Relativity+.
Two more things:
- Do dredge up a few examples of me being thuggish and bullying others
- While we're on the subject...you're bullying me again!
Nice shot at a strawman. He was not suggesting this.
What he's getting at is you're trying to shift the focus away from you by asking me if I knew BDW/MjolnirPants.
What does this have to do with your seemingly hypocritical crusade against the FM?
Oh, wait. Nothing.
Doc Doc, who's there? Oh look, a sewer rat. You'll need another sewer soon son.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Aug 1 2008, 06:37 PM)
You waste all that space, and all you can say is 'nothing'!????
Wow, just wow!!!!!!!!
Wrong! Observe:
"Your post has been reported."
See? I can say something after all.
Wow, just wow!!!!!!!!
Wrong! Observe:
"Your post has been reported."
See? I can say something after all.
QUOTE (Boneidol+)
Doc Doc, who's there? Oh look, a sewer rat. You'll need another sewer soon son.
Bullying.
Bullying.
QUOTE (excaza+Aug 1 2008, 07:42 AM)
At least you're posting condensed versions now.
Ooh, is this a fledgling sense of humour I see you beginning to cultivate?
You're gonna need it!
g.
Ooh, is this a fledgling sense of humour I see you beginning to cultivate?
You're gonna need it!
g.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Aug 1 2008, 08:08 AM)
Wrong! Observe:
"Your post has been reported."
See? I can say something after all.
Fantastic!
I can't wait to see the outcome of that!!!
g.
"Your post has been reported."
See? I can say something after all.
Fantastic!
I can't wait to see the outcome of that!!!
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Aug 1 2008, 07:14 PM)
Fantastic!
I can't wait to see the outcome of that!!!
g.
We shall see soon enough.
I can't wait to see the outcome of that!!!
g.
We shall see soon enough.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Aug 1 2008, 08:16 AM)
We shall see soon enough.
Sounds ominous!
The trouble is...
It smells like more bullcrap!
g.
Sounds ominous!
The trouble is...
It smells like more bullcrap!
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
Sounds ominous!
The trouble is...
It smells like more bullcrap!
We shall see (and smell) soon enough.
The trouble is...
It smells like more bullcrap!
We shall see (and smell) soon enough.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Aug 1 2008, 08:24 AM)
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
Sounds ominous!
The trouble is...
It smells like more bullcrap!
We shall see (and smell) soon enough.
Oh it already smells, Doc. Pretty fishy, i'd say...
g.
The diminishing attendance here just coincides with the mafia rising here? I can tell you why good scientists who also have decent spirits don't post here much. They have no problem ignoring or dealing with cranks the scientific way. I think they can't stand the spirit that the mafia has brought here. Exemplified by low life people that make poor arrogant statements like yourself.
The diminishing attendance here just coincides with the mafia rising here? I can tell you why good scientists who also have decent spirits don't post here much. They have no problem ignoring or dealing with cranks the scientific way. I think they can't stand the spirit that the mafia has brought here. Exemplified by low life people that make poor arrogant statements like yourself.
If the cranks weren't so persisent in their arrogance (or if this forum was more heavily moderated) the FM would not exist, period.
I lay my life on the fact that if this forum were heavily moderated you'd be looking for a violin teacher, not shooting your infertile sperm here. Mmmmmmm, that should get me my first warning. Please report it and find out Doc. I know you live for these moments, you man of high values in life you.
You wouldn't know the first thing. You see the big boys arguing and you jump in and ['ave a good bundle. You feel people should be ridiculed, right. Mind if I see out the rest of my time here ridiculing you? I know it will be an unbalanced bit of fun, because you'll have your mafia crew surrounding your latest target, but hey what the hell, it is fun. and you live for these moments, you poor template for spam fodder.
You wouldn't know the first thing. You see the big boys arguing and you jump in and ['ave a good bundle. You feel people should be ridiculed, right. Mind if I see out the rest of my time here ridiculing you? I know it will be an unbalanced bit of fun, because you'll have your mafia crew surrounding your latest target, but hey what the hell, it is fun. and you live for these moments, you poor template for spam fodder.
While we're on the subject...you're bullying me again!
No, there's no bullying at physorg. Haven't you been listening? This place is special. This is average Joe's bar, a quick stop for a few tots of whiskey and a bundle
Who? Never heard of these two individuals. You'll be cutting and pasting text I haven't posted next, and accuse me of saying there is an Mpants here and he is BDW. Nice try. but I know the rules of this place. It's all in good fun. Cheeky boy.
Who? Never heard of these two individuals. You'll be cutting and pasting text I haven't posted next, and accuse me of saying there is an Mpants here and he is BDW. Nice try. but I know the rules of this place. It's all in good fun. Cheeky boy.
What does this have to do with your seemingly hypocritical crusade against the FM?
you're joking, I love the radio.
The trouble is...
It smells like more bullcrap!
We shall see (and smell) soon enough.
Oh it already smells, Doc. Pretty fishy, i'd say...
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Aug 1 2008, 02:11 PM)
Ooh, is this a fledgling sense of humour I see you beginning to cultivate?
You're gonna need it!
g.
Beginning? You need to read more.
You're gonna need it!
g.
Beginning? You need to read more.
Hah! Until just recently (july 30th) it had been since June 10th when I last posted....and that was in the ridiculous/silly .9r thread. Numerous times i had stated that I was only having fun by adding (to an already comical thread) posts that were nothing more than contributions of an opposite stance.
However, my feedback was continuously peppered (during my absence) with negatives by the usual scanners who must delve back into the archives to find something to warrant a neg.
I have to chuckle at how determined these negbacks are to waste their time.
As it is now, I can't decide if these droppers of neg feedback are giving it to me thinking they are keeping me away....or attempting to stir me so that I might toss in a few more posts for subjecting their silly antics onto.
I find this thread an appropriate place to post another ridiculous group of words.
Have more fun!...everyone.
However, my feedback was continuously peppered (during my absence) with negatives by the usual scanners who must delve back into the archives to find something to warrant a neg.
I have to chuckle at how determined these negbacks are to waste their time.
As it is now, I can't decide if these droppers of neg feedback are giving it to me thinking they are keeping me away....or attempting to stir me so that I might toss in a few more posts for subjecting their silly antics onto.
I find this thread an appropriate place to post another ridiculous group of words.
Have more fun!...everyone.
Hi boneidol,
Couple of links here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_Bead_Game
Both (I think) highly relevent - any thoughts?
Couple of links here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_Bead_Game
Both (I think) highly relevent - any thoughts?
QUOTE
Unfortunately for you, the FM is not the cause of PhysOrg's low attendance. Ask yourself, "Why are some of the better posters like mr_homm, rpenner and DuzmA rarely around now?"
The diminishing attendance here just coincides with the mafia rising here? I can tell you why good scientists who also have decent spirits don't post here much. They have no problem ignoring or dealing with cranks the scientific way. I think they can't stand the spirit that the mafia has brought here. Exemplified by low life people that make poor arrogant statements like yourself.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Unfortunately for you, the FM is not the cause of PhysOrg's low attendance. Ask yourself, "Why are some of the better posters like mr_homm, rpenner and DuzmA rarely around now?" |
The diminishing attendance here just coincides with the mafia rising here? I can tell you why good scientists who also have decent spirits don't post here much. They have no problem ignoring or dealing with cranks the scientific way. I think they can't stand the spirit that the mafia has brought here. Exemplified by low life people that make poor arrogant statements like yourself.
If the cranks weren't so persisent in their arrogance (or if this forum was more heavily moderated) the FM would not exist, period.
I lay my life on the fact that if this forum were heavily moderated you'd be looking for a violin teacher, not shooting your infertile sperm here. Mmmmmmm, that should get me my first warning. Please report it and find out Doc. I know you live for these moments, you man of high values in life you.
QUOTE
Members of the FM attack the cranks because they feel the cranks should be ridiculed, not to "protect" mainstream science from ideas like WSM or Relativity+.
You wouldn't know the first thing. You see the big boys arguing and you jump in and ['ave a good bundle. You feel people should be ridiculed, right. Mind if I see out the rest of my time here ridiculing you? I know it will be an unbalanced bit of fun, because you'll have your mafia crew surrounding your latest target, but hey what the hell, it is fun. and you live for these moments, you poor template for spam fodder.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Members of the FM attack the cranks because they feel the cranks should be ridiculed, not to "protect" mainstream science from ideas like WSM or Relativity+. |
You wouldn't know the first thing. You see the big boys arguing and you jump in and ['ave a good bundle. You feel people should be ridiculed, right. Mind if I see out the rest of my time here ridiculing you? I know it will be an unbalanced bit of fun, because you'll have your mafia crew surrounding your latest target, but hey what the hell, it is fun. and you live for these moments, you poor template for spam fodder.
While we're on the subject...you're bullying me again!
No, there's no bullying at physorg. Haven't you been listening? This place is special. This is average Joe's bar, a quick stop for a few tots of whiskey and a bundle
QUOTE
What he's getting at is you're trying to shift the focus away from you by asking me if I knew BDW/MjolnirPants.
Who? Never heard of these two individuals. You'll be cutting and pasting text I haven't posted next, and accuse me of saying there is an Mpants here and he is BDW. Nice try. but I know the rules of this place. It's all in good fun. Cheeky boy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What he's getting at is you're trying to shift the focus away from you by asking me if I knew BDW/MjolnirPants. |
Who? Never heard of these two individuals. You'll be cutting and pasting text I haven't posted next, and accuse me of saying there is an Mpants here and he is BDW. Nice try. but I know the rules of this place. It's all in good fun. Cheeky boy.
What does this have to do with your seemingly hypocritical crusade against the FM?
you're joking, I love the radio.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.