Where did "Ivars" go?
The above title is a verbatim quote/
From one of the "disappeareds..."
What happened to Ivars? Why has he not posted lateley?
Will the asker of the question suffer recrimination for asking the question?
Best,
Raphie
P.S. To the moderator: Feel free to to shuttle this question to the appropriate feedack forum section of the site. if, that is, there is an appropriate section, which is doubtful. I will shuttle this question through my own channels...
P.P.S. To RPenner: Very puzzling indeed... how to express dissent when the gatekeepers of the gates of knowledge are also the enforcers of the closing of those very same gates...
Ivars was handed a 4-month suspension. 2850 hours remain on it.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=411100
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=411100
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+May 12 2009, 09:14 AM)
P.P.S. To RPenner: Very puzzling indeed... how to express dissent when the gatekeepers of the gates of knowledge are also the enforcers of the closing of those very same gates...
Are you saying that it's strange that the Gatekeepers, keep the gates (safe)?
And Ivars wasn't really seeking knowledge. He was just dabbling worse than I ever have.
But I hope Bukh comes back when he can.
Are you saying that it's strange that the Gatekeepers, keep the gates (safe)?
And Ivars wasn't really seeking knowledge. He was just dabbling worse than I ever have.
But I hope Bukh comes back when he can.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 12 2009, 11:55 AM)
But I hope Bukh comes back when he can.
Surely, buttershug -- and without reference to your views regarding Ivars -- you are not suggesting that bukh was also suspended from the forum, are you? If so -- and while I would not wish to jump to conclusions -- the term "purge" starts to come to mind. Not a term I would wish associated with our quite knowledgeable, well-meaning, and "enlightened" moderator.
Please do clear the air as in the not-so-distant past I have been one of said moderator's greatest advocates.
Best,
Raphie
Surely, buttershug -- and without reference to your views regarding Ivars -- you are not suggesting that bukh was also suspended from the forum, are you? If so -- and while I would not wish to jump to conclusions -- the term "purge" starts to come to mind. Not a term I would wish associated with our quite knowledgeable, well-meaning, and "enlightened" moderator.
Please do clear the air as in the not-so-distant past I have been one of said moderator's greatest advocates.
Best,
Raphie
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+May 13 2009, 11:55 PM)
Surely, buttershug -- and without reference to your views regarding Ivars -- you are not suggesting that bukh was also suspended from the forum, are you?
rpenner posted a link in response to your question... Did you even click on it?
So do you also think that a purge of racists from a human rights council would be undesirable? Would a purge of religious extremists from high-level military leadership be undesirable?
If not, then please explain how a purge of unscientific posters from a science forum is so much worse...
rpenner posted a link in response to your question... Did you even click on it?
QUOTE
If so -- and while I would not wish to jump to conclusions -- the term "purge" starts to come to mind. Not a term I would wish associated with our quite knowledgeable, well-meaning, and "enlightened" moderator.
So do you also think that a purge of racists from a human rights council would be undesirable? Would a purge of religious extremists from high-level military leadership be undesirable?
If not, then please explain how a purge of unscientific posters from a science forum is so much worse...
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 14 2009, 05:30 AM)
rpenner posted a link in response to your question... Did you even click on it?
I did indeed click on the link. The "justifications" amount to a popularity contest, which is not the way to conduct either a ) science or b ) a free society.
We live not in a democracy, but in a republic, the goal of which is to protect the rights of the minority, as well as the majority.
To validate your critique, however, I did indeed miss the specifics regarding bukh. As such, I cannot begrudge you your question. bukh "earned" a 16 day suspension.
Best,
Raphie
I did indeed click on the link. The "justifications" amount to a popularity contest, which is not the way to conduct either a ) science or b ) a free society.
We live not in a democracy, but in a republic, the goal of which is to protect the rights of the minority, as well as the majority.
To validate your critique, however, I did indeed miss the specifics regarding bukh. As such, I cannot begrudge you your question. bukh "earned" a 16 day suspension.
Best,
Raphie
Dictatorship. We have no rights. The goal is unknown.
QUOTE
All posts back to April 1 edited for hateful commentary
This one surprises me considering the number of hateful comments made by many who were actually encouraged (aka NOM, Euler, AlphaNumeric, and a few others) simply because they have more formal training and/or knowledge on the subject matter. From what I have seen with some of the digging I've done.
QUOTE (Confused2+May 14 2009, 01:00 PM)
Dictatorship. We have no rights. The goal is unknown.
I couldn't read this so here it is with size tabs removed. What do you think small text will accomplish?
I couldn't read this so here it is with size tabs removed. What do you think small text will accomplish?
H2O: WHAT subject matter? For the deleted posts, no topic got discussed. For the edited posts, nothing of substance was removed. We went a whole month with the poster's bile fountaining up to pollute various threads.
I'm sick and tired of people being presented with a challenge labelling it as persecution. Especially, when the main source of the challenge being the poster's own record of being truthful and posting by the terms of service. One is important to professionals in many fields, the other is important across the Internet. According to a recent court ruling in the US, a violation of the terms of service is tantamount to illegal computer access, a crime.
http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pub...d=1202429211620
I'm sick and tired of people being presented with a challenge labelling it as persecution. Especially, when the main source of the challenge being the poster's own record of being truthful and posting by the terms of service. One is important to professionals in many fields, the other is important across the Internet. According to a recent court ruling in the US, a violation of the terms of service is tantamount to illegal computer access, a crime.
http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pub...d=1202429211620
QUOTE (RF+)
I did indeed click on the link. The "justifications" amount to a popularity contest, which is not the way to conduct either a ) science or b ) a free society.
In all fairness, Ivars and the others had their chance to speak up during the May Day contest - it would have taken no more than 15-30 minutes of their time for them to present their own views on science and 'supposed' crackpottery.
It should also be noted that the "popularity contest" of which you speak was conducted by several people who actually know what the hell they're talking about, i.e. people who actually who math and physics! Ivars and bukh, to name a couple, were considered by these knowledgeable people to be stubborn idiots who are completely ignorant of the topics they claim to be doing. In other words, what they're doing isn't science - they're just waffling away, thinking they've got it down pat and that they'll eventually discover something big by said waffling.
It really depends on the post.
.9r = 1 thread is full of em. Hate posts that is by all participants. Those that obviously don't have the formal training get busted while those that appear to have more formal education in the field of math get a "dat-a-boy" more or less.
Then there is the feedback, oh my. Worse than what is said in the posts. Between calling people "retards" by throwing in their feedback a picture of someone mentally handicapped and the repeated use of the all too common demoralizing word "stupid". I like a good debate but can it honestly be civil? Let's not forget that considering the level of education of some, they must be adults. Although others seem to show a complete lack of maturity to you, keep in mind that they may be just teens or younger. Be the better man and be mature. Why stoop to their level? Because you know that if you have the right people on your side you can do anything they do (the slander and name calling and not the misuse of science) without consequence?
It should also be noted that the "popularity contest" of which you speak was conducted by several people who actually know what the hell they're talking about, i.e. people who actually who math and physics! Ivars and bukh, to name a couple, were considered by these knowledgeable people to be stubborn idiots who are completely ignorant of the topics they claim to be doing. In other words, what they're doing isn't science - they're just waffling away, thinking they've got it down pat and that they'll eventually discover something big by said waffling.
QUOTE (H2O+)
This one surprises me considering the number of hateful comments made by many who were actually encouraged (aka NOM, Euler, AlphaNumeric, and a few others) simply because they have more formal training and/or knowledge on the subject matter.
If you're kind to the cruel, you will cruel to the kind. Why should fools like Ivars, Cusa and Farsight be appeased for their idiocies? If they don't do science, why should that be met with a stance of "OK, listen, lets talk this over" - especially if such a stance has failed in the past?
OK - TheDoc's suggestion makes sense .. let's all agree that anyone stupider than ourselves should be barred (baa-ed?). Forgive my ignoranceness - but isn't that going to leave our moderator with nobody to moderate?
Edit .. I guess he's thinking "Best suggestion I've heard since becoming moderator"
Edit .. I guess he's thinking "Best suggestion I've heard since becoming moderator"
QUOTE (Confused2+May 14 2009, 08:39 PM)
OK - TheDoc's suggestion makes sense .. let's all agree that anyone stupider than ourselves should be barred (baa-ed?). Forgive my ignoranceness - but isn't that going to leave our moderator with nobody to moderate?
Edit .. I guess he's thinking "Best suggestion I've heard since becoming moderator"
That rush of air you're hearing is my point going right over your head.
Unless you're trying to be funny. Fair play to you, then.
Edit .. I guess he's thinking "Best suggestion I've heard since becoming moderator"
That rush of air you're hearing is my point going right over your head.
Unless you're trying to be funny. Fair play to you, then.
QUOTE (TheDoc+May 15 2009, 07:07 AM)
It should also be noted that the "popularity contest" of which you speak was conducted by several people who actually know what the hell they're talking about, i.e. people who actually who math and physics! Ivars and bukh, to name a couple, were considered by these knowledgeable people to be stubborn idiots who are completely ignorant of the topics they claim to be doing. In other words, what they're doing isn't science - they're just waffling away, thinking they've got it down pat and that they'll eventually discover something big by said waffling.
Eggzackery.
Everybody had the same opportunity to participate.
All it would have taken is posting a short essay (the essay I posted was my third attempt, the previous two were shaping up to be far too long), and a list of people.
Heck, those feeling persecuted could even have voted for the same people, had they chosen to participate, but, they didn't.
Eggzackery.
Everybody had the same opportunity to participate.
All it would have taken is posting a short essay (the essay I posted was my third attempt, the previous two were shaping up to be far too long), and a list of people.
Heck, those feeling persecuted could even have voted for the same people, had they chosen to participate, but, they didn't.
QUOTE (prometheus+May 14 2009, 04:50 PM)
I couldn't read this so here it is with size tabs removed. What do you think small text will accomplish?
I believe Confused2 was engaging in a form of visual "Onomatopoeia."
"Onomatopoeia or onomatopœia, from the Greek... for "I make"... is one or more words that imitate or suggest the source of the sound they are describing..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopoeia
As one who considers himself a symbolic and relational thinker, I feel somewhat confident inferring that the very fact that the words posted by C2 were so small was largely the point. This is the way someone suffering from "descrimination on the basis of intellectual orientation" is often made to feel.
In other words, one may as well not exist. And sometimes, in point of fact, one is, metaphorically, if not actually, "made not to exist." The recent suspensions being a case in point.
Just my take. Feel free to correct me C2 if, perchance, I missed your intention.
Best,
Raphie
I believe Confused2 was engaging in a form of visual "Onomatopoeia."
"Onomatopoeia or onomatopœia, from the Greek... for "I make"... is one or more words that imitate or suggest the source of the sound they are describing..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopoeia
As one who considers himself a symbolic and relational thinker, I feel somewhat confident inferring that the very fact that the words posted by C2 were so small was largely the point. This is the way someone suffering from "descrimination on the basis of intellectual orientation" is often made to feel.
In other words, one may as well not exist. And sometimes, in point of fact, one is, metaphorically, if not actually, "made not to exist." The recent suspensions being a case in point.
Just my take. Feel free to correct me C2 if, perchance, I missed your intention.
Best,
Raphie
QUOTE (rpenner+May 14 2009, 05:52 PM)
I'm sick and tired of people being presented with a challenge labelling it as persecution.
With all due respect, RPenner, I am rather sick and tired of moderators here or anywhere who repeatedly let clearly bright people be called "stupid." I posted my Math GRE and SAT scores online recently precisely so that I might make this point, not for myself, but on behalf of others. The next step? Call me a "liar"?
WOW, there's "truth" for you, RPenner.
Point blank, you are continuing to allow unconscionable psychological abuse upon this forum and it is entirely beneath you. On the macro scale you run the risk of being as responsible for jeopardizing human life as ubavontuba with his fear mongering.
Below is part of an email I recently sent to a family member.
Best,
Raphie
P.S. I state this even as I do not take back a single positive statement I have made about you in the past.
P.P.S.
These guys, as well intended as they also may be, on the one hand let others publicly bash people's character and abuse them emotionally and psychically with the most revulsive name-calling imaginable -- presumably in the interests of first amendment privilege -- and then on the other hand they suppress free thought that does not accord with scientific dogma. Ironically, Dr. Penner -- and I actually agree with him on this -- charged one poster with fear mongering that could put lives in jeopardy. Does not emotional and psychic abuse no less constitute a threat to life?
November 26, 2007
Late last week authorities in Dardenne Prairie, Missouri, decreed that any form of electronic bullying or harassment is now illegal within the confines of the small city following the terrible suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/tech/new...cle_1376392.php
With all due respect, RPenner, I am rather sick and tired of moderators here or anywhere who repeatedly let clearly bright people be called "stupid." I posted my Math GRE and SAT scores online recently precisely so that I might make this point, not for myself, but on behalf of others. The next step? Call me a "liar"?
WOW, there's "truth" for you, RPenner.
Point blank, you are continuing to allow unconscionable psychological abuse upon this forum and it is entirely beneath you. On the macro scale you run the risk of being as responsible for jeopardizing human life as ubavontuba with his fear mongering.
Below is part of an email I recently sent to a family member.
Best,
Raphie
P.S. I state this even as I do not take back a single positive statement I have made about you in the past.
P.P.S.
These guys, as well intended as they also may be, on the one hand let others publicly bash people's character and abuse them emotionally and psychically with the most revulsive name-calling imaginable -- presumably in the interests of first amendment privilege -- and then on the other hand they suppress free thought that does not accord with scientific dogma. Ironically, Dr. Penner -- and I actually agree with him on this -- charged one poster with fear mongering that could put lives in jeopardy. Does not emotional and psychic abuse no less constitute a threat to life?
November 26, 2007
Late last week authorities in Dardenne Prairie, Missouri, decreed that any form of electronic bullying or harassment is now illegal within the confines of the small city following the terrible suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/tech/new...cle_1376392.php
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 15 2009, 01:06 AM)
May I recommend such an act be included in any update for Sharia Law?
Do you not mean Pizz-aria Law?
Not to be politically correct or anything, by the way, but there are a heck of a lot of good Muslims out there...
Best,
Raphie
Do you not mean Pizz-aria Law?
Not to be politically correct or anything, by the way, but there are a heck of a lot of good Muslims out there...
Best,
Raphie
QUOTE
WHAT subject matter?
It really depends on the post.
.9r = 1 thread is full of em. Hate posts that is by all participants. Those that obviously don't have the formal training get busted while those that appear to have more formal education in the field of math get a "dat-a-boy" more or less.
Then there is the feedback, oh my. Worse than what is said in the posts. Between calling people "retards" by throwing in their feedback a picture of someone mentally handicapped and the repeated use of the all too common demoralizing word "stupid". I like a good debate but can it honestly be civil? Let's not forget that considering the level of education of some, they must be adults. Although others seem to show a complete lack of maturity to you, keep in mind that they may be just teens or younger. Be the better man and be mature. Why stoop to their level? Because you know that if you have the right people on your side you can do anything they do (the slander and name calling and not the misuse of science) without consequence?
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 15 2009, 01:06 AM)
A competition was held, where people got to choose who should be suspended and literally publicly humiliated! May I recommend such an act be included in any update for Sharia Law? Is this forum Muslim owned?
So which one were you?
But honestly I think your comments are overdramatic.
Raphie, although I agree with some of what you say, I think youre taking it to a level that doesnt compare to the situation. You still exist regardless of if you get banned from some obscure web forum. And your right to free speech is not really curtailed just because you get banned. Because remember that you still have the right to start your own forum and run it however you want. Now if the Government started telling you who should and shouldnt be a part, that would be different.
As for the psychological effects of online abuse, I agree in principle but I think youre taking it to an extreme in this case. But I also know this is an issue you feel strongly about, and I believe you raise a valid point about a kind of behavior that deserves to be moderated.
And I think you should still write an essay. I would be curious to know your take on the difference between pseudoscience and science.
So which one were you?
But honestly I think your comments are overdramatic.
Raphie, although I agree with some of what you say, I think youre taking it to a level that doesnt compare to the situation. You still exist regardless of if you get banned from some obscure web forum. And your right to free speech is not really curtailed just because you get banned. Because remember that you still have the right to start your own forum and run it however you want. Now if the Government started telling you who should and shouldnt be a part, that would be different.
As for the psychological effects of online abuse, I agree in principle but I think youre taking it to an extreme in this case. But I also know this is an issue you feel strongly about, and I believe you raise a valid point about a kind of behavior that deserves to be moderated.
And I think you should still write an essay. I would be curious to know your take on the difference between pseudoscience and science.
I haven't been here long enough to fully understand the reasons some of these other members were suspended, but i will talk about what i do know.
Cyber bullying should not be taken as a huge thing. Frankly i try to brush most of it off (with one exception to that anti-semitic a-hole, in which my overreaction got me this warning) , or simply avoid putting myself into a position in which i would invoke such harsh responses from people (ie: try not to be stupid in public).
If i don't have a clue what the heck anyone is talking about, i will avoid replying to such a post. Which is why i'm still "newbie" status, as i don't understand most of what i read enough to give a valid constructive reply. Constructive being the key word that certain people seem to forget.
I may ask questions, but i am in no position to start claiming crackpottery theories as truth. I have read some pretty nutty stuff here, and it is amazing, the lengths some people will go to defend their claims without the actual use of scientific laws, math, or even experiments to prove themselves
.
Ah well, you can't keep all the weirdo's out.
Cyber bullying should not be taken as a huge thing. Frankly i try to brush most of it off (with one exception to that anti-semitic a-hole, in which my overreaction got me this warning) , or simply avoid putting myself into a position in which i would invoke such harsh responses from people (ie: try not to be stupid in public).
If i don't have a clue what the heck anyone is talking about, i will avoid replying to such a post. Which is why i'm still "newbie" status, as i don't understand most of what i read enough to give a valid constructive reply. Constructive being the key word that certain people seem to forget.
I may ask questions, but i am in no position to start claiming crackpottery theories as truth. I have read some pretty nutty stuff here, and it is amazing, the lengths some people will go to defend their claims without the actual use of scientific laws, math, or even experiments to prove themselves
. Ah well, you can't keep all the weirdo's out.
QUOTE (H2O+May 15 2009, 02:06 AM)
Then there is the feedback, oh my. Worse than what is said in the posts. Between calling people "retards" by throwing in their feedback a picture of someone mentally handicapped and the repeated use of the all too common demoralizing word "stupid". I like a good debate but can it honestly be civil?
Civility? Yes. Sugarcoating? No. And it is worth noting that in some cases the former will only hold up to certain point, at which all hell will nominally break loose and rpenner will eventually be forced to step in.
Though our even-handed moderator would prefer that we refrain from doing so (and we're trying very hard), some people really do deserve to be called, among other things, a "double-talking dolt". Their demeanor and the content of their posts suggest that they are, in fact, double-talking dolts - obviously, then, such a label should be fitting for those people.
Does calling a crank, say, a quizzically inept amoeba achieve anything? No, but then again such comments are meant to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Besides, they can be funny sometimes.
I would have to disagree. The problem with the typical school yard bullying is with the parents (and yes I am a parent). It the attitude that "boys will be boys" that allows it to happen and yes it is a big deal. A child is at a time of his life when he (or she) is still building upon a foundation that will be relied upon for the rest of their life. To be bullied can lead to social issues depending on the degree of bullying and how tolerant (both mentally and physically) the individual is. Then the is the person doing the bullying. The big issue there is "why". What is the reason behind it. That reason can very well be the difference between them going to jail for assault or murder or simply going out of it but maintaining a smug arrogance or cockiness.
Now this is cases where the public eye is upon them (more or less). With computers you tend to remove yourself from the real world (consciously or subconsciously) and so you remove yourself from the real world laws that go with it. A person who is the bullyer is more likely to go further than they normally would and as a result the reason that would otherwise have resulted in them growing out of it instead goes out the window. Depending on their computer know how or their willingness to learn they can do bad things, really bad things. As the bullyee don't think you are safe just because your behind a computer. There are ways to track you down despite using an online email set up with fake info and using a screen name. You will leave an electronic footprint that can be followed. Such goes both ways as someone who received too much abuse from someone else online could track that person down with the right know how and again do really bad things to them. All the while not thinking their really doing something really bad because it is only being done on the internet. Since there is no face to the bank account or whatever, then there is a level of desensitization that would otherwise be there.
Kinda like war. Used to be that you had to get up close and personal. You had to look the person you were about to kill in the eye and watch the expression on their face as they realized their fate. Now with all the technology it is more like playing a video game. While this doesn't actually take any of the danger of you being killed away, it does psychologically remove the fear of being killed by giving a false sense of security. You feel your in an untouchable position despite the opposite being true.
So while this all seems like fun and games to a select few, it isn't to the victims of it. Do you know who they are or what they are really capable of? Sounds like a game of Russian roulette to me. It may very well be the cause to an effect that you are not ready for. In which case you have nobody to blame except yourselves. I've seen forums get hacked in the past. You can only hope that is all that will happen.
Yes, in Quebec it's OK to kill English speaking people and take shots at Indians. Visiting Yankee's are alright so long as they spend the greenback but if not, they will be ejected by catapult.
Civility? Yes. Sugarcoating? No. And it is worth noting that in some cases the former will only hold up to certain point, at which all hell will nominally break loose and rpenner will eventually be forced to step in.
Though our even-handed moderator would prefer that we refrain from doing so (and we're trying very hard), some people really do deserve to be called, among other things, a "double-talking dolt". Their demeanor and the content of their posts suggest that they are, in fact, double-talking dolts - obviously, then, such a label should be fitting for those people.
Does calling a crank, say, a quizzically inept amoeba achieve anything? No, but then again such comments are meant to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Besides, they can be funny sometimes.
QUOTE (fivedoughnut in ubavontuba's feedback+ Sept. 27, 2008)
Barkingly manifest stupidity, of more vivid and blinding conspicuousness than a swarm of hang-gliding giraffes in fluorescent zoot suits.
QUOTE (TheDoc+)
..such comments are meant to be taken with a pinch of salt.
I don't know how many others have the same thing - the negatives in my feedback look like an upwelling of pure bile.
I don't know how many others have the same thing - the negatives in my feedback look like an upwelling of pure bile.
QUOTE (occidental+May 15 2009, 03:04 AM)
So which one were you?
But honestly I think your comments are overdramatic.
Which one were you?
Well yes it was overdramatic. Good spot.
I should have said Taliban, not Muslim.
This forum isn't that obscure. Physorg is a reputable web site, or at least I get to read many great articles there.
But honestly I think your comments are overdramatic.
Which one were you?
Well yes it was overdramatic. Good spot.
I should have said Taliban, not Muslim.
This forum isn't that obscure. Physorg is a reputable web site, or at least I get to read many great articles there.
Geoff Mollusc Posted: May 13 2009, 07:14 PM
Negative At the apex, of the pinnacle, of the zenith of fuckedbraindom
Hi C2,
The above is the latest addition to my collection - but not to worry, it demeans the abuser far more than the abused. And this character has never posted anthing with any scientific content, be it mainstream, crank or crackpot.
regards
E3
Negative At the apex, of the pinnacle, of the zenith of fuckedbraindom
Hi C2,
The above is the latest addition to my collection - but not to worry, it demeans the abuser far more than the abused. And this character has never posted anthing with any scientific content, be it mainstream, crank or crackpot.
regards
E3
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 15 2009, 12:39 PM)
Which one were you?
Well yes it was overdramatic. Good spot.
I should have said Taliban, not Muslim.
This forum isn't that obscure. Physorg is a reputable web site, or at least I get to read many great articles there.
You appear to be having trouble with your reading comprehension skills.
I was one who submitted an essay, unlike you who did not submit an essay but instead waited until after the fact to complain.
As for your comments about muslims, that wasnt overdramatic it was offensive. Also interesting in that by coming to the defense of one group you seem to have the need to insult a different group in the process.
Your supporting evidence that this forum is not obscure lacks logic. My understanding is that Physorg is not associated with physforum any more. Additionally, the fact that you read articles that you like at physorg does nothing to support your claim that "this forum isnt that obscure".
I say that based on the daily traffic of this site compared with others, this forum is obscure.
Well yes it was overdramatic. Good spot.
I should have said Taliban, not Muslim.
This forum isn't that obscure. Physorg is a reputable web site, or at least I get to read many great articles there.
You appear to be having trouble with your reading comprehension skills.
I was one who submitted an essay, unlike you who did not submit an essay but instead waited until after the fact to complain.
As for your comments about muslims, that wasnt overdramatic it was offensive. Also interesting in that by coming to the defense of one group you seem to have the need to insult a different group in the process.
Your supporting evidence that this forum is not obscure lacks logic. My understanding is that Physorg is not associated with physforum any more. Additionally, the fact that you read articles that you like at physorg does nothing to support your claim that "this forum isnt that obscure".
I say that based on the daily traffic of this site compared with others, this forum is obscure.
QUOTE (occidental+May 15 2009, 01:08 PM)
You appear to be having trouble with your reading comprehension skills.
I was one who submitted an essay, unlike you who did not submit an essay but instead waited until after the fact to complain.
As for your comments about muslims, that wasnt overdramatic it was offensive. Also interesting in that by coming to the defense of one group you seem to have the need to insult a different group in the process.
Your supporting evidence that this forum is not obscure lacks logic. My understanding is that Physorg is not associated with physforum any more. Additionally, the fact that you read articles that you like at physorg does nothing to support your claim that "this forum isnt that obscure".
I say that based on the daily traffic of this site compared with others, this forum is obscure.
That's very dramatic. I obviously misinterpreted your earlier claim of my sentiments being overdramatic. I thought it may be a criticism, but I can see you enjoy the overdramatic.
Are you challenging me to an essay on what constitutes science? I don't have to worry about doing that. I have found an extremely good one. Go to wikipedia and type in "Scientific Method".
I was one who submitted an essay, unlike you who did not submit an essay but instead waited until after the fact to complain.
As for your comments about muslims, that wasnt overdramatic it was offensive. Also interesting in that by coming to the defense of one group you seem to have the need to insult a different group in the process.
Your supporting evidence that this forum is not obscure lacks logic. My understanding is that Physorg is not associated with physforum any more. Additionally, the fact that you read articles that you like at physorg does nothing to support your claim that "this forum isnt that obscure".
I say that based on the daily traffic of this site compared with others, this forum is obscure.
That's very dramatic. I obviously misinterpreted your earlier claim of my sentiments being overdramatic. I thought it may be a criticism, but I can see you enjoy the overdramatic.
Are you challenging me to an essay on what constitutes science? I don't have to worry about doing that. I have found an extremely good one. Go to wikipedia and type in "Scientific Method".
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 15 2009, 01:16 PM)
Are you challenging me to an essay on what constitutes science? I don't have to worry about doing that. I have found an extremely good one. Go to wikipedia and type in "Scientific Method".
Hey occidental...I think we may have another Lui sockpuppet on our hands.
Hey occidental...I think we may have another Lui sockpuppet on our hands.
QUOTE (TheDoc+May 15 2009, 04:49 PM)
Hey occidental...I think we may have another Lui sockpuppet on our hands.
That's twice today that "Lui" has been mentioned.
I've noticed that occidental is not in favor of insults on a forum, but you view them as a bit of fun not to be taken seriously. I've also noticed you have both given each other positive feedback, so something doesn't quite add up. Looking into it a bit further it seems that occidental doesn't have a problem with insults after all, as shown by this positive he left somebody:
.............occidental Posted: Feb 15 2009, 03:00 AM Positive I liked your abuse and trolling in "online abuse in action".................
I can only conclude that there is a definate lack of credibility here.
I think this forum is ill. Luckily I've been informed that it isn't actually linked to Physorg. Phew.
Bon humiliating. Won't be back.......hoooray.
That's twice today that "Lui" has been mentioned.
I've noticed that occidental is not in favor of insults on a forum, but you view them as a bit of fun not to be taken seriously. I've also noticed you have both given each other positive feedback, so something doesn't quite add up. Looking into it a bit further it seems that occidental doesn't have a problem with insults after all, as shown by this positive he left somebody:
.............occidental Posted: Feb 15 2009, 03:00 AM Positive I liked your abuse and trolling in "online abuse in action".................
I can only conclude that there is a definate lack of credibility here.
I think this forum is ill. Luckily I've been informed that it isn't actually linked to Physorg. Phew.
Bon humiliating. Won't be back.......hoooray.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 15 2009, 05:14 PM)
That's twice today that "Lui" has been mentioned.
I've noticed that occidental is not in favor of insults on a forum, but you view them as a bit of fun not to be taken seriously. I've also noticed you have both given each other positive feedback, so something doesn't quite add up. Looking into it a bit further it seems that occidental doesn't have a problem with insults after all, as shown by this positive he left somebody:
.............occidental Posted: Feb 15 2009, 03:00 AM Positive I liked your abuse and trolling in "online abuse in action".................
I can only conclude that there is a definate lack of credibility here.
I think this forum is ill. Luckily I've been informed that it isn't actually linked to Physorg. Phew.
Bon humiliating. Won't be back.......hoooray.
Ok Lui. Thanks for stopping by.
I've noticed that occidental is not in favor of insults on a forum, but you view them as a bit of fun not to be taken seriously. I've also noticed you have both given each other positive feedback, so something doesn't quite add up. Looking into it a bit further it seems that occidental doesn't have a problem with insults after all, as shown by this positive he left somebody:
.............occidental Posted: Feb 15 2009, 03:00 AM Positive I liked your abuse and trolling in "online abuse in action".................
I can only conclude that there is a definate lack of credibility here.
I think this forum is ill. Luckily I've been informed that it isn't actually linked to Physorg. Phew.
Bon humiliating. Won't be back.......hoooray.
Ok Lui. Thanks for stopping by.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 15 2009, 05:14 PM)
That's twice today that "Lui" has been mentioned.
I've noticed that occidental is not in favor of insults on a forum, but you view them as a bit of fun not to be taken seriously. I've also noticed you have both given each other positive feedback, so something doesn't quite add up. Looking into it a bit further it seems that occidental doesn't have a problem with insults after all, as shown by this positive he left somebody...
Yep, definitely a Luipuppet.
I've noticed that occidental is not in favor of insults on a forum, but you view them as a bit of fun not to be taken seriously. I've also noticed you have both given each other positive feedback, so something doesn't quite add up. Looking into it a bit further it seems that occidental doesn't have a problem with insults after all, as shown by this positive he left somebody...
Yep, definitely a Luipuppet.
QUOTE
Cyber bullying should not be taken as a huge thing.
I would have to disagree. The problem with the typical school yard bullying is with the parents (and yes I am a parent). It the attitude that "boys will be boys" that allows it to happen and yes it is a big deal. A child is at a time of his life when he (or she) is still building upon a foundation that will be relied upon for the rest of their life. To be bullied can lead to social issues depending on the degree of bullying and how tolerant (both mentally and physically) the individual is. Then the is the person doing the bullying. The big issue there is "why". What is the reason behind it. That reason can very well be the difference between them going to jail for assault or murder or simply going out of it but maintaining a smug arrogance or cockiness.
Now this is cases where the public eye is upon them (more or less). With computers you tend to remove yourself from the real world (consciously or subconsciously) and so you remove yourself from the real world laws that go with it. A person who is the bullyer is more likely to go further than they normally would and as a result the reason that would otherwise have resulted in them growing out of it instead goes out the window. Depending on their computer know how or their willingness to learn they can do bad things, really bad things. As the bullyee don't think you are safe just because your behind a computer. There are ways to track you down despite using an online email set up with fake info and using a screen name. You will leave an electronic footprint that can be followed. Such goes both ways as someone who received too much abuse from someone else online could track that person down with the right know how and again do really bad things to them. All the while not thinking their really doing something really bad because it is only being done on the internet. Since there is no face to the bank account or whatever, then there is a level of desensitization that would otherwise be there.
Kinda like war. Used to be that you had to get up close and personal. You had to look the person you were about to kill in the eye and watch the expression on their face as they realized their fate. Now with all the technology it is more like playing a video game. While this doesn't actually take any of the danger of you being killed away, it does psychologically remove the fear of being killed by giving a false sense of security. You feel your in an untouchable position despite the opposite being true.
So while this all seems like fun and games to a select few, it isn't to the victims of it. Do you know who they are or what they are really capable of? Sounds like a game of Russian roulette to me. It may very well be the cause to an effect that you are not ready for. In which case you have nobody to blame except yourselves. I've seen forums get hacked in the past. You can only hope that is all that will happen.
Toby,
You gotta understand that the doc is a member of a large family of sockpuppets and he gets these obsessions that everybody else is into the big family scene. I reckon he must be related to the pope and is on an anti-contraception mission. Trout and Mollusc are among his brethern - tell you about a few more some other time !!
E3
You gotta understand that the doc is a member of a large family of sockpuppets and he gets these obsessions that everybody else is into the big family scene. I reckon he must be related to the pope and is on an anti-contraception mission. Trout and Mollusc are among his brethern - tell you about a few more some other time !!
E3
QUOTE (Edward 3+May 15 2009, 07:25 PM)
Toby,
You gotta understand that the doc is a member of a large family of sockpuppets and he gets these obsessions that everybody else is into the big family scene. I reckon he must be related to the pope and is on an anti-contraception mission. Trout and Mollusc are among his brethern - tell you about a few more some other time !!
E3
Drat, you've found me out.
You gotta understand that the doc is a member of a large family of sockpuppets and he gets these obsessions that everybody else is into the big family scene. I reckon he must be related to the pope and is on an anti-contraception mission. Trout and Mollusc are among his brethern - tell you about a few more some other time !!
E3
Drat, you've found me out.
QUOTE (H20+)
I've seen forums get hacked in the past.
You are looking at the remains of a forum that is already hacked.
-C2.
You are looking at the remains of a forum that is already hacked.
-C2.
QUOTE (H2O+May 15 2009, 07:23 PM)
stuff
Wrong.
The parents themselves are paramount to a child's disposition. The school yard is superficial in developing personality,
As for the girl that killed herself, look to other factors instead of "bullying" on the internet.
The person convicted was convicted for terms of service. You cannot convict a person for internet bullying. It's not even legal for a town to declare internet bullying illegal. Anything besides a federal level is not really a law.
Wrong.
The parents themselves are paramount to a child's disposition. The school yard is superficial in developing personality,
As for the girl that killed herself, look to other factors instead of "bullying" on the internet.
The person convicted was convicted for terms of service. You cannot convict a person for internet bullying. It's not even legal for a town to declare internet bullying illegal. Anything besides a federal level is not really a law.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 15 2009, 08:16 PM)
Wrong.
Anything besides a federal level is not really a law.
Including murder?
That's not federal in the States.
Anything besides a federal level is not really a law.
Including murder?
That's not federal in the States.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 15 2009, 09:12 PM)
Including murder?
That's not federal in the States.
No state writes the criminal code of the united states.
and murder is part of the criminal code.
That's not federal in the States.
No state writes the criminal code of the united states.
and murder is part of the criminal code.
Yes, in Quebec it's OK to kill English speaking people and take shots at Indians. Visiting Yankee's are alright so long as they spend the greenback but if not, they will be ejected by catapult.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 15 2009, 04:30 PM)
No state writes the criminal code of the united states.
and murder is part of the criminal code.
Sorry, BwS, that is not correct.
Each State has it's own criminal code, and murder is not included in the Federal statutes, except when it takes place on a Federal reservation, such as a military base.
and murder is part of the criminal code.
Sorry, BwS, that is not correct.
Each State has it's own criminal code, and murder is not included in the Federal statutes, except when it takes place on a Federal reservation, such as a military base.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 15 2009, 09:30 PM)
No state writes the criminal code of the united states.
and murder is part of the criminal code.
The only federal laws in the States are in areas explicitly covered in the Constitution or that the Feds can blackmail the States on.
Watch Mississippi burning especially at the end.
And each state can download to the municpal level. Prostitution is legal in Tahoe but not Vegas.
(If a state has a drinking age under 21 they don't get federal funding for instate highways.)
and murder is part of the criminal code.
The only federal laws in the States are in areas explicitly covered in the Constitution or that the Feds can blackmail the States on.
Watch Mississippi burning especially at the end.
And each state can download to the municpal level. Prostitution is legal in Tahoe but not Vegas.
(If a state has a drinking age under 21 they don't get federal funding for instate highways.)
Enlighten me by posting a link guys.
http://united-america.org/code_criminal/article_0490.htm
This is not about gay marriage this is about homicide.
http://united-america.org/code_criminal/article_0490.htm
This is not about gay marriage this is about homicide.
check out criminal law in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 15 2009, 05:33 PM)
Enlighten me by posting a link guys.
http://united-america.org/code_criminal/article_0490.htm
This is not about gay marriage this is about homicide.
You and those arguing with you are both right...
There are a whole host of federal laws. Perjury, certain types of fraud, and several other offenses are federal offenses wherever they are committed. There are also laws which exist at both the federal and state levels, such as laws prohibiting murder. The federal versions of these laws are those under which an offender will be prosecuted if committed on any federal property, such as: Inside federal buildings, across state lines (committing multiple murders in multiple states can get you prosecuted on a federal level, as can interstate drug trafficking), on US territorial land which does not have it's own legal system (several small islands in the pacific and US foreign embassies), or on military bases (when committed by a civilian) or (sometimes) in national parks.
Additionally, there are other situations in which one can commit a crime and be prosecuted on a federal level, depending on the law enforcement relationship between that state and the federal government.
And it seems to me that the original point was that actions taken on the internet are not prosecutable by any but federal laws, which is not always true. AFAIK if the offender, server and victim are all located in the same state, the state has jurisdiction. However, there are a whole host of federally illegal activities one can engage in on the internet, including but not limited to: distributing or receiving child pornography, engaging in fraudulent business practices, stalking, hacking into private networks, and more.
http://united-america.org/code_criminal/article_0490.htm
This is not about gay marriage this is about homicide.
You and those arguing with you are both right...
There are a whole host of federal laws. Perjury, certain types of fraud, and several other offenses are federal offenses wherever they are committed. There are also laws which exist at both the federal and state levels, such as laws prohibiting murder. The federal versions of these laws are those under which an offender will be prosecuted if committed on any federal property, such as: Inside federal buildings, across state lines (committing multiple murders in multiple states can get you prosecuted on a federal level, as can interstate drug trafficking), on US territorial land which does not have it's own legal system (several small islands in the pacific and US foreign embassies), or on military bases (when committed by a civilian) or (sometimes) in national parks.
Additionally, there are other situations in which one can commit a crime and be prosecuted on a federal level, depending on the law enforcement relationship between that state and the federal government.
And it seems to me that the original point was that actions taken on the internet are not prosecutable by any but federal laws, which is not always true. AFAIK if the offender, server and victim are all located in the same state, the state has jurisdiction. However, there are a whole host of federally illegal activities one can engage in on the internet, including but not limited to: distributing or receiving child pornography, engaging in fraudulent business practices, stalking, hacking into private networks, and more.
Simple question. Is whether or not murder is illegal left up to the individual state to decide?
edit forgot to indicate individual 'state'.
edit forgot to indicate individual 'state'.
QUOTE (occidental+May 15 2009, 03:04 AM)
And I think you should still write an essay. I would be curious to know your take on the difference between pseudoscience and science.
Dear Occidental,
I really don't see how I could much improve upon John Baez' famous "Crackpot Index." That said, if ever I were to write anything on the subject, it would be more likely that I would focus on where such heuristic pattern-based "rule of thumb" framings can go wrong. By way of example, and to relate the issue of science vs. pseudoscience to the topic of this thread - the "disappearings without representation" that have recently occurred on this forrum -- here are the last few sentences from that recent letter I sent that I alluded to previously:
============================================================
"Oh, and one last thing I find rather amusing. One of the "hallmarks" of the "crank" is that they work in isolation. Is this because they want to, or is it because they are forced to? How many geniuses go unseen? How much potential human energy is lost? And how many lives are destroyed for the ignorance of others? This recognition is very much at the heart of my interest in hidden populations."
============================================================
The point is this: Heuristics are NOT proofs. They are merely "signposts" or "suggestions" that suggest shortcuts to better understanding. And they are certainly not infallible.
Given this, I find it more than ironic when I see many of the same posters on this forum who harangue others with one side of their tongue for not providing "proofs" in a mathematical or physics framework, then with the other side of their tongue posit that they have "proven" that someone is an "idiot" or whatever the name du jour may be.
Conversely, I also find it more than ironic that many of these same posters scoff at the heuristic method the moment one suggests it may be applied to the sciences, not to replace, but to supplement, as a hypothesis generation tool, the scientific techniques already in use.
Best,
Raphie
P.S. Richard Dawkins has a great Chapter on Pseudoscience in his book "Unweaving the Rainbow." It's Chapter 6 "Hoodwink'd With Faery Fancy" p. 114 - 144. Check it out at a bookstore some time if you've the interest and if you get a chance.
Dear Occidental,
I really don't see how I could much improve upon John Baez' famous "Crackpot Index." That said, if ever I were to write anything on the subject, it would be more likely that I would focus on where such heuristic pattern-based "rule of thumb" framings can go wrong. By way of example, and to relate the issue of science vs. pseudoscience to the topic of this thread - the "disappearings without representation" that have recently occurred on this forrum -- here are the last few sentences from that recent letter I sent that I alluded to previously:
============================================================
"Oh, and one last thing I find rather amusing. One of the "hallmarks" of the "crank" is that they work in isolation. Is this because they want to, or is it because they are forced to? How many geniuses go unseen? How much potential human energy is lost? And how many lives are destroyed for the ignorance of others? This recognition is very much at the heart of my interest in hidden populations."
============================================================
The point is this: Heuristics are NOT proofs. They are merely "signposts" or "suggestions" that suggest shortcuts to better understanding. And they are certainly not infallible.
Given this, I find it more than ironic when I see many of the same posters on this forum who harangue others with one side of their tongue for not providing "proofs" in a mathematical or physics framework, then with the other side of their tongue posit that they have "proven" that someone is an "idiot" or whatever the name du jour may be.
Conversely, I also find it more than ironic that many of these same posters scoff at the heuristic method the moment one suggests it may be applied to the sciences, not to replace, but to supplement, as a hypothesis generation tool, the scientific techniques already in use.
Best,
Raphie
P.S. Richard Dawkins has a great Chapter on Pseudoscience in his book "Unweaving the Rainbow." It's Chapter 6 "Hoodwink'd With Faery Fancy" p. 114 - 144. Check it out at a bookstore some time if you've the interest and if you get a chance.
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+May 15 2009, 12:42 AM)
I posted my Math GRE and SAT scores online recently precisely so that I might make this point, not for myself, but on behalf of others. The next step? Call me a "liar"?
WOW, there's "truth" for you, RPenner.
RPenner,
Do I really need to make my point any more cogently?
WOW, there's "truth" for you, RPenner.
RPenner,
Do I really need to make my point any more cogently?
QUOTE (Euler+May 15 2009, 11:19 PM)
So just to make the situation clear: you have claimed:
And yet, when presented with such a test, you're unwilling to demonstrate any level of competency.
Like I said, you're an idiot. This latest episode just indicates you're dishonest.
Euler is posting in relation to the following:
P.P.S. For any who would suggest I should have responded to Euler's challenge, keep in mind that before one takes the GRE's one studies for them. I've no intention of cramming for a day simply to respond to spurious challenges by those who have repeatedly expressed ill intent towards me.
Hi Raphie
Can I suggest you give up on this place? This place is dominated by psychic vampires. You are far better than these people that, the more they learn, the more stupid they seem to get.
If you are interested, I found this group a while back:
http ://groups .yahoo. com/group/SSE
Groups like this are made up of scientists with manners.
Or else keep looking. I am convinced that the rudeness from the "learned" here is a bad role model. It encourages bad feelings, because when they are seen doing it then aspiring students will feel comfortable doing it too.
Best
I thought that is what I said by...
"The problem with the typical school yard bullying is with the parents"
I thought that is what I said by...
"The problem with the typical school yard bullying is with the parents"
You are looking at the remains of a forum that is already hacked.
Well then, there ya go.
Er...
You made it sound as if "boys will be boys" of paramount importance.
I don't know how to say it really but psychology can be more complex.
The patient presented with obsessional thoughts and with behaviors which he felt compelled to carry out. The case received its name from a torture he had heard about from a military officer, where rats would eat their way into the anus of the victim. The patient then felt a compulsion to imagine that this fate was befalling two people dear to him, specifically his fiancée and his father. The irrational and compulsive nature of this obsession is revealed by the fact that the man had the greatest regard for his fiancée and that his revered father had actually been dead for some years. Freud theorized that these compulsive ideas and similar thoughts were produced by conflicts consisting of the combination of loving and aggressive impulses relating to the people concerned.
The Rat-man also often defended himself against his own thoughts. He would have a secret thought that he wished his father would die so he could inherit all of his money, and then he would shame himself by fantasizing that his father would die and leave him nothing. The patient even goes so far as to fantasize about marrying Freud's daughter so that Freud would have more money.
In addition, the symptoms were believed to keep the patient from needing to make difficult decisions in his current life, and to ward off the anxiety which would be involved in experiencing the angry and aggressive impulses directly. The patient's older sister and father had died, and these losses were considered, along with his suicidal thoughts and his tendency to form verbal associations and symbolic meanings.
Freud believed that they began with sexual experiences of infancy, in particular harsh punishment for childhood masturbation, and the vicissitudes of sexual curiosity. In the case study Freud elaborates on his terms rationalization, doubt, and displacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Man
In the US, it's English common law.
In the US, it's English common law.
Is the US constitution written by the state of New York in whole part?
The primary author of the US Constitution was James Madison. Others who had much to do with writing the Constitution included John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe. Morris was in charge of the committee to draft the final copy of the Constitution and it is generally accepted that he created most of the actual wording.
Not so. Unless such a municipal statute is deemed unconstitutional, you can be prosecuted and convicted in the municipality.
You are trying to substitute your own definition of law for the actual definition. It's just like a crackpot saying that gravity and magnetism are the same thing.
Sorry, you get no smiley face on this.
A concise and intelligent argument.
You should lay off the beer through your straws.
Those cases, and similar ones in Oregon, have yet to be adjudicated. In New Hampshire, where I live, medical marijuana was just passed, and in Massachusetts, posession of an ounce or less was made a fineable violation, rather than a criminal matter, just this last January. When they do come to the courts, I'm sure it will make it to the SC as a states rights issue.
I would have to disagree. The problem with the typical school yard bullying is with the parents (and yes I am a parent). It the attitude that "boys will be boys" that allows it to happen and yes it is a big deal. A child is at a time of his life when he (or she) is still building upon a foundation that will be relied upon for the rest of their life. To be bullied can lead to social issues depending on the degree of bullying and how tolerant (both mentally and physically) the individual is. Then the is the person doing the bullying. The big issue there is "why". What is the reason behind it. That reason can very well be the difference between them going to jail for assault or murder or simply going out of it but maintaining a smug arrogance or cockiness.
Now this is cases where the public eye is upon them (more or less). With computers you tend to remove yourself from the real world (consciously or subconsciously) and so you remove yourself from the real world laws that go with it. A person who is the bullyer is more likely to go further than they normally would and as a result the reason that would otherwise have resulted in them growing out of it instead goes out the window. Depending on their computer know how or their willingness to learn they can do bad things, really bad things. As the bullyee don't think you are safe just because your behind a computer. There are ways to track you down despite using an online email set up with fake info and using a screen name. You will leave an electronic footprint that can be followed. Such goes both ways as someone who received too much abuse from someone else online could track that person down with the right know how and again do really bad things to them. All the while not thinking their really doing something really bad because it is only being done on the internet. Since there is no face to the bank account or whatever, then there is a level of desensitization that would otherwise be there.
Kinda like war. Used to be that you had to get up close and personal. You had to look the person you were about to kill in the eye and watch the expression on their face as they realized their fate. Now with all the technology it is more like playing a video game. While this doesn't actually take any of the danger of you being killed away, it does psychologically remove the fear of being killed by giving a false sense of security. You feel your in an untouchable position despite the opposite being true.
So while this all seems like fun and games to a select few, it isn't to the victims of it. Do you know who they are or what they are really capable of? Sounds like a game of Russian roulette to me. It may very well be the cause to an effect that you are not ready for. In which case you have nobody to blame except yourselves. I've seen forums get hacked in the past. You can only hope that is all that will happen.
Sorry to bring the current conversation offtopic, but i just read this and wanted to reply.
I am a student, a "child" by law if you wish to see it in a technical sense.
You are over-reacting.
I have had my share of flaming on internet forums, its just written words. If i do not wish to read them, i am not forced to (as oppose to listening to somebody flame you), if i no longer wish to be subject to such flaming, i leave as I please. Easy as that.
For those people being flamed, quit doing whatever you are doing to invoke the flames. I have learned over the years that saying stupid things without much thought will 99% of the time get you a harsh response. This is self-invoked "cyber bullying", that can easily be prevented if you just use your brain before posting.
Anyone that hurts themselves over insults over the computer is already very emotionally damaged, and probably would have hurt themselves for non-computer related reasons too, depending on what came first. I don't mean to sound like an a-hole to anyone that has, but your self esteem is waaaaay low if you actually take these insults seriously.
I would not confuse insults with criticism here though, some of the crackpot members here really should take the advice they are given, instead of completely ignoring it, as i have noticed while i read over the forums.
Tracking people down? I'm no an expert with computers, but i challenge you to find me. I'm guessing it is possible, but i'm not convinced it is so easy anyone could do it (including children), if you would prove me wrong though, then i have just learned something new.
And yet, when presented with such a test, you're unwilling to demonstrate any level of competency.
Like I said, you're an idiot. This latest episode just indicates you're dishonest.
Euler is posting in relation to the following:
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+May 13 2009, 09:31 AM)
Congratulate me, Euler, after I take the GRE's again and improve upon the the rather embarrassing 720 I scored in mathematics this past October. I would have hoped at the very least least to match the 740 I received on my SAT's 25 years ago. But, c'est la vie, fate favors not the "staggeringly stupid."
Best,
Raphie
Best,
Raphie
P.S. RPenner, you will receive a private email regarding this.
P.P.S. For any who would suggest I should have responded to Euler's challenge, keep in mind that before one takes the GRE's one studies for them. I've no intention of cramming for a day simply to respond to spurious challenges by those who have repeatedly expressed ill intent towards me.
Best,
Raphie
Best,
Raphie
P.S. RPenner, you will receive a private email regarding this.
P.P.S. For any who would suggest I should have responded to Euler's challenge, keep in mind that before one takes the GRE's one studies for them. I've no intention of cramming for a day simply to respond to spurious challenges by those who have repeatedly expressed ill intent towards me.
Hey, prove me wrong! Show that I've got it completely wrong and you do know what you're on about!
I await your response with bated breath...
I await your response with bated breath...
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 15 2009, 05:51 PM)
Simple question. Is whether or not murder is illegal left up to the individual state to decide?
edit forgot to indicate individual 'state'.
Here's a link to the New Hampshire Criminal Statutes on homicide.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/N.../NHTOC-LXII.htm
Here's a link to the Maine Criminal Statutes on homicide.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/stat...4-Bsec1931.html
Here's a link to the Vermont Criminal Statutes on homicide
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/sectio...=13&Chapter=053
Here's a link to the General Laws OF Massachusetts on homicide.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-pt4-toc.htm
Do I have to post the other 46 states also?
edit forgot to indicate individual 'state'.
Here's a link to the New Hampshire Criminal Statutes on homicide.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/N.../NHTOC-LXII.htm
Here's a link to the Maine Criminal Statutes on homicide.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/stat...4-Bsec1931.html
Here's a link to the Vermont Criminal Statutes on homicide
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/sectio...=13&Chapter=053
Here's a link to the General Laws OF Massachusetts on homicide.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-pt4-toc.htm
Do I have to post the other 46 states also?
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+May 15 2009, 11:23 PM)
P.P.S. For any who would suggest I should have responded to Euler's challenge, keep in mind that before one takes the GRE's one studies for them. I've no intention of cramming for a day simply to respond to spurious challenges by those who have repeatedly expressed ill intent towards me.
I'm not asking you to answer all the questions. I'm not asking you to do the test under timed conditions. The questions are elementary enough so that passing familiarity with the subject matter is what's important. The answers are even provided in the test!!!
I'm simply asking you to explain to us your rationale. I (and other readers) would like to think you'd be able to substantiate your claims, even in the weakest of senses. I mean, how can you, over a year forget all you know about all of elementary mathematics. We just want to know you're not a complete liar! You have all the time in the world, the worlds largest information resource at your fingertips, and most of all, not so long ago you knew and understood all this stuff (well, at least you claim that).
Come on, let's pick a random page - say page58. You tell us all how you'd answer those questions. If you've miraculously forgotten all you know about the material covered on that page, we can perform the same experiment again. And again...
I'm not asking you to answer all the questions. I'm not asking you to do the test under timed conditions. The questions are elementary enough so that passing familiarity with the subject matter is what's important. The answers are even provided in the test!!!
I'm simply asking you to explain to us your rationale. I (and other readers) would like to think you'd be able to substantiate your claims, even in the weakest of senses. I mean, how can you, over a year forget all you know about all of elementary mathematics. We just want to know you're not a complete liar! You have all the time in the world, the worlds largest information resource at your fingertips, and most of all, not so long ago you knew and understood all this stuff (well, at least you claim that).
Come on, let's pick a random page - say page58. You tell us all how you'd answer those questions. If you've miraculously forgotten all you know about the material covered on that page, we can perform the same experiment again. And again...
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+May 15 2009, 11:23 PM)
P.P.S. For any who would suggest I should have responded to Euler's challenge, keep in mind that before one takes the GRE's one studies for them. I've no intention of cramming for a day simply to respond to spurious challenges by those who have repeatedly expressed ill intent towards me.
Hi Raphie
Can I suggest you give up on this place? This place is dominated by psychic vampires. You are far better than these people that, the more they learn, the more stupid they seem to get.
If you are interested, I found this group a while back:
http ://groups .yahoo. com/group/SSE
Groups like this are made up of scientists with manners.
Or else keep looking. I am convinced that the rudeness from the "learned" here is a bad role model. It encourages bad feelings, because when they are seen doing it then aspiring students will feel comfortable doing it too.
Best
QUOTE (AlexG+May 15 2009, 11:36 PM)
Here's a link to the New Hampshire Criminal Statutes on homicide.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/N.../NHTOC-LXII.htm
Here's a link to the Maine Criminal Statutes on homicide.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/stat...4-Bsec1931.html
Here's a link to the Vermont Criminal Statutes on homicide
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/sectio...=13&Chapter=053
Here's a link to the General Laws OF Massachusetts on homicide.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-pt4-toc.htm
Do I have to post the other 46 states also?
Well what does the supreme court say?
Come on!
And you didn't answer my question:
Is it left up to the individual state to decide whether or not murder is illegal?
Do you think murder would infringe on the rights of citizens in the US?
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/N.../NHTOC-LXII.htm
Here's a link to the Maine Criminal Statutes on homicide.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/stat...4-Bsec1931.html
Here's a link to the Vermont Criminal Statutes on homicide
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/sectio...=13&Chapter=053
Here's a link to the General Laws OF Massachusetts on homicide.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-pt4-toc.htm
Do I have to post the other 46 states also?
Well what does the supreme court say?
Come on!
And you didn't answer my question:
Is it left up to the individual state to decide whether or not murder is illegal?
Do you think murder would infringe on the rights of citizens in the US?
"If we re-write the constitution, we can make all kinds of crazy laws"
~Simpsons quote
~Simpsons quote
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 15 2009, 07:04 PM)
Well what does the supreme court say?
Come on!
About what?
There is a Federal statute regarding homicide, but it only applies to crimes committed on Federal property.
Here's an SC ruling on the issue which holds that the state statute does not supercede the Federal statute on a Federal enclave.
But the Federal statute on murder does not apply except on federal property.
Come on!
About what?
There is a Federal statute regarding homicide, but it only applies to crimes committed on Federal property.
Here's an SC ruling on the issue which holds that the state statute does not supercede the Federal statute on a Federal enclave.
QUOTE
“Whoever within or upon any [federal enclave], is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State … in which such place is situated, … shall be guilty of a like offense and subject to like punishment.” 18 U.S.C. § 13(a).
The question in this case is whether the ACA makes applicable on a federal Army base located in Louisiana a state first-degree murder statute that defines first-degree murder to include the “killing of a human being … [w]hen the offender has the specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm upon a victim under the age of twelve … .” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14:30(A)(5) (West 1986 and Supp. 1997).
We hold that the ACA does not make the state provision part of federal law. A federal murder statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1111 therefore governs the crime at issue–the killing of a four year-old child “with malice aforethought” but without “premeditation.” Under that statute this crime is second-degree, not first-degree, murder.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-7151.ZO.html
The question in this case is whether the ACA makes applicable on a federal Army base located in Louisiana a state first-degree murder statute that defines first-degree murder to include the “killing of a human being … [w]hen the offender has the specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm upon a victim under the age of twelve … .” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14:30(A)(5) (West 1986 and Supp. 1997).
We hold that the ACA does not make the state provision part of federal law. A federal murder statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1111 therefore governs the crime at issue–the killing of a four year-old child “with malice aforethought” but without “premeditation.” Under that statute this crime is second-degree, not first-degree, murder.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-7151.ZO.html
But the Federal statute on murder does not apply except on federal property.
I'm not talking specifics of who did what in what state or what not. I'm talking about fundamental basic law.
The constitution says that there is one overall supreme court over all states. In my original post I mentioned "federal level" not specifically federal laws. The supreme is an institution on a federal level.
There are many posters here from around the world and it would have been a courtesy not to overlook this. There are many different countries with different legal systems, but with fundamental similarities. Blathering me with specifics on petty fine on one print is being overtly discourteous.
And arguing with me serves no purpose but.
The constitution says that there is one overall supreme court over all states. In my original post I mentioned "federal level" not specifically federal laws. The supreme is an institution on a federal level.
There are many posters here from around the world and it would have been a courtesy not to overlook this. There are many different countries with different legal systems, but with fundamental similarities. Blathering me with specifics on petty fine on one print is being overtly discourteous.
And arguing with me serves no purpose but.
And wow.
Someone didn't read the fine print of their own flippant spew:
"The fifty American states are separate sovereigns with their own state constitutions and state governments.[19] They retain plenary power to make laws covering anything not preempted by the federal Constitution, federal statutes, or international treaties ratified by the federal Senate."
Someone didn't read the fine print of their own flippant spew:
"The fifty American states are separate sovereigns with their own state constitutions and state governments.[19] They retain plenary power to make laws covering anything not preempted by the federal Constitution, federal statutes, or international treaties ratified by the federal Senate."
QUOTE
The parents themselves are paramount to a child's disposition.
I thought that is what I said by...
"The problem with the typical school yard bullying is with the parents"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The parents themselves are paramount to a child's disposition. |
I thought that is what I said by...
"The problem with the typical school yard bullying is with the parents"
You are looking at the remains of a forum that is already hacked.
Well then, there ya go.
QUOTE (H2O+May 16 2009, 01:42 AM)
Er...
You made it sound as if "boys will be boys" of paramount importance.
I don't know how to say it really but psychology can be more complex.
The patient presented with obsessional thoughts and with behaviors which he felt compelled to carry out. The case received its name from a torture he had heard about from a military officer, where rats would eat their way into the anus of the victim. The patient then felt a compulsion to imagine that this fate was befalling two people dear to him, specifically his fiancée and his father. The irrational and compulsive nature of this obsession is revealed by the fact that the man had the greatest regard for his fiancée and that his revered father had actually been dead for some years. Freud theorized that these compulsive ideas and similar thoughts were produced by conflicts consisting of the combination of loving and aggressive impulses relating to the people concerned.
The Rat-man also often defended himself against his own thoughts. He would have a secret thought that he wished his father would die so he could inherit all of his money, and then he would shame himself by fantasizing that his father would die and leave him nothing. The patient even goes so far as to fantasize about marrying Freud's daughter so that Freud would have more money.
In addition, the symptoms were believed to keep the patient from needing to make difficult decisions in his current life, and to ward off the anxiety which would be involved in experiencing the angry and aggressive impulses directly. The patient's older sister and father had died, and these losses were considered, along with his suicidal thoughts and his tendency to form verbal associations and symbolic meanings.
Freud believed that they began with sexual experiences of infancy, in particular harsh punishment for childhood masturbation, and the vicissitudes of sexual curiosity. In the case study Freud elaborates on his terms rationalization, doubt, and displacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Man
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 15 2009, 11:48 PM)
This place is dominated by psychic vampires.
Whats a psychic vampire, Lui? Do you have any actual evidence of a psychic vampire, or is that something you just made up?
Raphie, I think youre giving up too easy. The Baez essay was already submitted. Ill check out the Dawkins book, Im a fan of his. But Im sure you have your own opinions on what you think is pseudoscience, the value you feel your work has, and what constitutes a good poster. And Im sure that even though the deadline has passed, so long as you title your essay rpenner will read it. Id even read it, so long as you dont include any examples of your work. That kind of stuff makes my eyes glaze over... all those numbers.......
But its the bigger picture that I think is important here, and its in an area that I believe you could have some valuable insight.
Whats a psychic vampire, Lui? Do you have any actual evidence of a psychic vampire, or is that something you just made up?
Raphie, I think youre giving up too easy. The Baez essay was already submitted. Ill check out the Dawkins book, Im a fan of his. But Im sure you have your own opinions on what you think is pseudoscience, the value you feel your work has, and what constitutes a good poster. And Im sure that even though the deadline has passed, so long as you title your essay rpenner will read it. Id even read it, so long as you dont include any examples of your work. That kind of stuff makes my eyes glaze over... all those numbers.......
But its the bigger picture that I think is important here, and its in an area that I believe you could have some valuable insight.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 15 2009, 08:15 PM)
And wow.
Someone didn't read the fine print of their own flippant spew:
"The fifty American states are separate sovereigns with their own state constitutions and state governments.[19] They retain plenary power to make laws covering anything not preempted by the federal Constitution, federal statutes, or international treaties ratified by the federal Senate."
Are you talking about your own flippant spew?
Because I'm not sure I get your point. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
You said 'Anything besides a federal level is not really a law. ', which is clearly wrong.
You also said 'No state writes the criminal code of the united states.', which is also clearly wrong. Each state writes it's own criminal code and the congress passes laws at the federal level.
You say 'I'm talking about fundamental basic law.', which is pretty vague and meaningless.
You say 'The constitution says that there is one overall supreme court over all states', which again is incorrect. Section 2 of the constitution says
'The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In fact, the only thing you've said which is correct is, "And arguing with me serves no purpose but." And that is correct because you have no knowledge on the subject. It's as productive as arguing with the cranks over physics.
If you're going to comment on American law and the Constitution, it would serve you well to actually read it.
Someone didn't read the fine print of their own flippant spew:
"The fifty American states are separate sovereigns with their own state constitutions and state governments.[19] They retain plenary power to make laws covering anything not preempted by the federal Constitution, federal statutes, or international treaties ratified by the federal Senate."
Are you talking about your own flippant spew?
Because I'm not sure I get your point. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
You said 'Anything besides a federal level is not really a law. ', which is clearly wrong.
You also said 'No state writes the criminal code of the united states.', which is also clearly wrong. Each state writes it's own criminal code and the congress passes laws at the federal level.
You say 'I'm talking about fundamental basic law.', which is pretty vague and meaningless.
You say 'The constitution says that there is one overall supreme court over all states', which again is incorrect. Section 2 of the constitution says
'The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In fact, the only thing you've said which is correct is, "And arguing with me serves no purpose but." And that is correct because you have no knowledge on the subject. It's as productive as arguing with the cranks over physics.
If you're going to comment on American law and the Constitution, it would serve you well to actually read it.
Of course you don't know.
A case in point. "No state writes the criminal code for the US"
Didn't you happen to notice the singular on that? Is it too much to be concise?
And hey, you just tagged along. I wholeheartedly didn't intend to have a rational conversation. And if you or buttershug don't know where that quote I made about flippant spew came from why would I think a rational conversation is possible?
Would you have liked a story.
"One day Mr. Mayor declares it illegal to blow your nose in public places..." Then go on a long argument about municipal, state and federal levels of government?
A case in point. "No state writes the criminal code for the US"
Didn't you happen to notice the singular on that? Is it too much to be concise?
And hey, you just tagged along. I wholeheartedly didn't intend to have a rational conversation. And if you or buttershug don't know where that quote I made about flippant spew came from why would I think a rational conversation is possible?
Would you have liked a story.
"One day Mr. Mayor declares it illegal to blow your nose in public places..." Then go on a long argument about municipal, state and federal levels of government?
QUOTE (AlexG+May 16 2009, 03:08 AM)
'The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
And fundamentally, the laws are based off of what?
Is the US constitution written by the state of New York in whole part?
Is not the constitution a federal document affecting all states?
Does the us constitution imply you cannot make rude comments on the internet?
If the constitution does not say anything about rude comments on the internet, and on a municipal level they are deemed illegal it is not really a law!
And fundamentally, the laws are based off of what?
Is the US constitution written by the state of New York in whole part?
Is not the constitution a federal document affecting all states?
Does the us constitution imply you cannot make rude comments on the internet?
If the constitution does not say anything about rude comments on the internet, and on a municipal level they are deemed illegal it is not really a law!
QUOTE
And fundamentally, the laws are based off of what?
In the US, it's English common law.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And fundamentally, the laws are based off of what? |
In the US, it's English common law.
Is the US constitution written by the state of New York in whole part?
The primary author of the US Constitution was James Madison. Others who had much to do with writing the Constitution included John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe. Morris was in charge of the committee to draft the final copy of the Constitution and it is generally accepted that he created most of the actual wording.
QUOTE
If the constitution does not say anything about rude comments on the internet, and on a municipal level they are deemed illegal it is not really a law!
Not so. Unless such a municipal statute is deemed unconstitutional, you can be prosecuted and convicted in the municipality.
You are trying to substitute your own definition of law for the actual definition. It's just like a crackpot saying that gravity and magnetism are the same thing.
Sorry, you get no smiley face on this.
QUOTE
Beer w/Straw Posted: Today at 10:35 PM
Negative F off
Negative F off
A concise and intelligent argument.
You should lay off the beer through your straws.
Wow, I'm so F'ing sorry. Did you want me to write a 6 000 word essay for you? To be clear on every point. Do you think my tone suggests that I think its worth it?
Do you think I really care other than talking smack right now?
No smiley face for New York?
Do you believe New York has some special significance for me to comment about?
I picked it at random. So why did you feel the need to comment about my choice of state?
Do you think I really care other than talking smack right now?
No smiley face for New York?
Do you believe New York has some special significance for me to comment about?
I picked it at random. So why did you feel the need to comment about my choice of state?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 15 2009, 11:07 PM)
Wow, I'm so F'ing sorry. Did you want me to write a 6 000 word essay for you? ?
Don't bother. It wouldn't be readable.
Do you believe New York has some special significance for me to comment about?
I picked it at random. So why did you feel the need to comment about my choice of state
But I didn't comment on it.
You shouldn't post when you're drunk. You just sound stupid.
Don't bother. It wouldn't be readable.
QUOTE
Do you believe New York has some special significance for me to comment about?
I picked it at random. So why did you feel the need to comment about my choice of state
But I didn't comment on it.
You shouldn't post when you're drunk. You just sound stupid.
So Alex,
I propose a challenge to you. How do you think my original post relates to posts made before it.
I can tell you, that it was not my intention to have the thread go on like the way it did. And if you don't know what I was saying in relation, why did you even feel the need to comment at all. Because you have to admit then, that you took it out of context.
Wow eh?
I propose a challenge to you. How do you think my original post relates to posts made before it.
I can tell you, that it was not my intention to have the thread go on like the way it did. And if you don't know what I was saying in relation, why did you even feel the need to comment at all. Because you have to admit then, that you took it out of context.
Wow eh?
Stupider.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 16 2009, 04:20 AM)
Stupider.
How so?
How so?
I see no point in continuing this with you.
Actually I take that back.
Die in a fire.
Die in a fire.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 15 2009, 07:17 PM)
But the Federal statute on murder does not apply except on federal property.
Actually, I believe I left something out of my previous post, concerning the situations in which federal law applies.
I'm fairly certain that something which is federally illegal, but not illegal under local statutes can be prosecuted under federal law.
Case in point: The raids of medical marijuana dealerships in California by federal law enforcement.
Actually, I believe I left something out of my previous post, concerning the situations in which federal law applies.
I'm fairly certain that something which is federally illegal, but not illegal under local statutes can be prosecuted under federal law.
Case in point: The raids of medical marijuana dealerships in California by federal law enforcement.
QUOTE
Case in point: The raids of medical marijuana dealerships in California by federal law enforcement.
Those cases, and similar ones in Oregon, have yet to be adjudicated. In New Hampshire, where I live, medical marijuana was just passed, and in Massachusetts, posession of an ounce or less was made a fineable violation, rather than a criminal matter, just this last January. When they do come to the courts, I'm sure it will make it to the SC as a states rights issue.
QUOTE (H2O+May 15 2009, 07:23 PM)
I would have to disagree. The problem with the typical school yard bullying is with the parents (and yes I am a parent). It the attitude that "boys will be boys" that allows it to happen and yes it is a big deal. A child is at a time of his life when he (or she) is still building upon a foundation that will be relied upon for the rest of their life. To be bullied can lead to social issues depending on the degree of bullying and how tolerant (both mentally and physically) the individual is. Then the is the person doing the bullying. The big issue there is "why". What is the reason behind it. That reason can very well be the difference between them going to jail for assault or murder or simply going out of it but maintaining a smug arrogance or cockiness.
Now this is cases where the public eye is upon them (more or less). With computers you tend to remove yourself from the real world (consciously or subconsciously) and so you remove yourself from the real world laws that go with it. A person who is the bullyer is more likely to go further than they normally would and as a result the reason that would otherwise have resulted in them growing out of it instead goes out the window. Depending on their computer know how or their willingness to learn they can do bad things, really bad things. As the bullyee don't think you are safe just because your behind a computer. There are ways to track you down despite using an online email set up with fake info and using a screen name. You will leave an electronic footprint that can be followed. Such goes both ways as someone who received too much abuse from someone else online could track that person down with the right know how and again do really bad things to them. All the while not thinking their really doing something really bad because it is only being done on the internet. Since there is no face to the bank account or whatever, then there is a level of desensitization that would otherwise be there.
Kinda like war. Used to be that you had to get up close and personal. You had to look the person you were about to kill in the eye and watch the expression on their face as they realized their fate. Now with all the technology it is more like playing a video game. While this doesn't actually take any of the danger of you being killed away, it does psychologically remove the fear of being killed by giving a false sense of security. You feel your in an untouchable position despite the opposite being true.
So while this all seems like fun and games to a select few, it isn't to the victims of it. Do you know who they are or what they are really capable of? Sounds like a game of Russian roulette to me. It may very well be the cause to an effect that you are not ready for. In which case you have nobody to blame except yourselves. I've seen forums get hacked in the past. You can only hope that is all that will happen.
Sorry to bring the current conversation offtopic, but i just read this and wanted to reply.
I am a student, a "child" by law if you wish to see it in a technical sense.
You are over-reacting.
I have had my share of flaming on internet forums, its just written words. If i do not wish to read them, i am not forced to (as oppose to listening to somebody flame you), if i no longer wish to be subject to such flaming, i leave as I please. Easy as that.
For those people being flamed, quit doing whatever you are doing to invoke the flames. I have learned over the years that saying stupid things without much thought will 99% of the time get you a harsh response. This is self-invoked "cyber bullying", that can easily be prevented if you just use your brain before posting.
Anyone that hurts themselves over insults over the computer is already very emotionally damaged, and probably would have hurt themselves for non-computer related reasons too, depending on what came first. I don't mean to sound like an a-hole to anyone that has, but your self esteem is waaaaay low if you actually take these insults seriously.
I would not confuse insults with criticism here though, some of the crackpot members here really should take the advice they are given, instead of completely ignoring it, as i have noticed while i read over the forums.
Tracking people down? I'm no an expert with computers, but i challenge you to find me. I'm guessing it is possible, but i'm not convinced it is so easy anyone could do it (including children), if you would prove me wrong though, then i have just learned something new.
Just to throw my two cents in if I may...
I believe in being as polite as I can while still calling a spade a spade. Being Canadian, I have the typical inclination towards polite and well ordered discussion. I prefer to stay away from name calling or abuse, and I think this promotes better debates.
However...
1. I can understand the frustration of having to deal with people who will not accept any point but their own. I can see how constantly dealing with the lunatic fringe can make someone a tad grumpy.
2. Being polite does not mean that I tolerate BS.
3. For politeness to work, it has to be mutual. Some people simply cannot be reasoned with, so sometimes stronger methods are needed.
I have an old motto... "When reason fails, brute force prevails".
Lastly, commenting on Micheal J's post, I have often seen people claim that they will track me down. This is something I actively encourage... but I think I am rather non standard in this attitude and I don't recommend it for most.
I believe in being as polite as I can while still calling a spade a spade. Being Canadian, I have the typical inclination towards polite and well ordered discussion. I prefer to stay away from name calling or abuse, and I think this promotes better debates.
However...
1. I can understand the frustration of having to deal with people who will not accept any point but their own. I can see how constantly dealing with the lunatic fringe can make someone a tad grumpy.
2. Being polite does not mean that I tolerate BS.
3. For politeness to work, it has to be mutual. Some people simply cannot be reasoned with, so sometimes stronger methods are needed.
I have an old motto... "When reason fails, brute force prevails".
Lastly, commenting on Micheal J's post, I have often seen people claim that they will track me down. This is something I actively encourage... but I think I am rather non standard in this attitude and I don't recommend it for most.
QUOTE (Michael J+)
Tracking people down? I'm no an expert with computers, but i challenge you to find me. I'm guessing it is possible, but i'm not convinced it is so easy anyone could do it (including children), if you would prove me wrong though, then i have just learned something new.
It would require first getting the IP address of the person you wish to track, which involves hacking this site or getting the admin username/password and login protocol (He may not log in as a poster, but directly to the server level, in which case you need to know which protocol is being used), then you must take that IP address and determine where it comes from. Usually, this will be the poster's server, which means you then have to determine which ISP owns that server (this is a bit on the easy side, but I'm not going to explain how it's done). Once you have this information, you need to find out from the ISP which account uses that IP address, which itself can involve some high level hacking, or abuse of law enforcement credentials, or perhaps just getting the right person drunk and convincing them to show you where they work (no easy task, I assure you). Then you'd have to figure out which person living at the address you got is the person in question, or even whether or not the person you're looking for lives at that address. If it's a business, you're pretty much screwed, because by the time you found out who you were looking for, the police would likely be on their way.
Basically, you'd need to be a law enforcement official, a very skilled hacker, or a trained intelligence operative to do it. It's not something your average internet a_hole can do.
It would require first getting the IP address of the person you wish to track, which involves hacking this site or getting the admin username/password and login protocol (He may not log in as a poster, but directly to the server level, in which case you need to know which protocol is being used), then you must take that IP address and determine where it comes from. Usually, this will be the poster's server, which means you then have to determine which ISP owns that server (this is a bit on the easy side, but I'm not going to explain how it's done). Once you have this information, you need to find out from the ISP which account uses that IP address, which itself can involve some high level hacking, or abuse of law enforcement credentials, or perhaps just getting the right person drunk and convincing them to show you where they work (no easy task, I assure you). Then you'd have to figure out which person living at the address you got is the person in question, or even whether or not the person you're looking for lives at that address. If it's a business, you're pretty much screwed, because by the time you found out who you were looking for, the police would likely be on their way.
Basically, you'd need to be a law enforcement official, a very skilled hacker, or a trained intelligence operative to do it. It's not something your average internet a_hole can do.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
Lastly, commenting on Micheal J's post, I have often seen people claim that they will track me down. This is something I actively encourage... but I think I am rather non standard in this attitude and I don't recommend it for most.
I do the same. One person (years ago, when I was posting on bulletin boards, instead of the internet) actually managed to do so by getting the phone number I was connecting from. He showed up at my house looking for a fight, and so I gave him one. That was the end of that, and we wound up being friends.
I don't' want to go into too much detail about what I'd do if that were to happen again, but I will say that I don't worry too much about people offering me violence, due to my own experience and knowledge.
I do the same. One person (years ago, when I was posting on bulletin boards, instead of the internet) actually managed to do so by getting the phone number I was connecting from. He showed up at my house looking for a fight, and so I gave him one. That was the end of that, and we wound up being friends.
I don't' want to go into too much detail about what I'd do if that were to happen again, but I will say that I don't worry too much about people offering me violence, due to my own experience and knowledge.
Wow this is an interesting article: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/d...11----000-.html
Perhaps if idiot and grandpa would look before they saw how much spam they could post.
Or maybe they shouldn't have opened their mouth's in the first place. Didn't I already post something similar to this, oh yes - I think I did. That's great.
Can I have some more spam from the deliberately stupid.
And when I say a law isn't really a law, perhaps I wasn't speaking literally, but if said law is not defined in the code it is not a very big deal at all.
Wait, didn't grandpa post some stuff off that site as well? Maybe his effort for spam and useless dribble far exceeded posing any real argument.
So, maybe my tone was exactly fitting.
Perhaps if idiot and grandpa would look before they saw how much spam they could post.
Or maybe they shouldn't have opened their mouth's in the first place. Didn't I already post something similar to this, oh yes - I think I did. That's great.
Can I have some more spam from the deliberately stupid.
And when I say a law isn't really a law, perhaps I wasn't speaking literally, but if said law is not defined in the code it is not a very big deal at all.
Wait, didn't grandpa post some stuff off that site as well? Maybe his effort for spam and useless dribble far exceeded posing any real argument.
So, maybe my tone was exactly fitting.
Hey MjolnirPants...
It sounds like we have similar hobbies.
Beer w/Straw...
I have seen you post some very good stuff before.. but this is pretty needlessly insulting, whether you think it is deserved or not. It's not likely to get a measured reaction. I think both of you need to relax.
Maybe that's just my own idiom though.
It sounds like we have similar hobbies.
Beer w/Straw...
I have seen you post some very good stuff before.. but this is pretty needlessly insulting, whether you think it is deserved or not. It's not likely to get a measured reaction. I think both of you need to relax.
Maybe that's just my own idiom though.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+May 16 2009, 09:50 AM)
Hey MjolnirPants...
It sounds like we have similar hobbies.
Sounds like.
I agree. Both sides have valid points. If both sides can just calm down for a bit, I think that can be seen more clearly.
It sounds like we have similar hobbies.
Sounds like.
QUOTE
Beer w/Straw...
I have seen you post some very good stuff before.. but this is pretty needlessly insulting, whether you think it is deserved or not. It's not likely to get a measured reaction. I think both of you need to relax.
Maybe that's just my own idiom though.
I have seen you post some very good stuff before.. but this is pretty needlessly insulting, whether you think it is deserved or not. It's not likely to get a measured reaction. I think both of you need to relax.
Maybe that's just my own idiom though.
I agree. Both sides have valid points. If both sides can just calm down for a bit, I think that can be seen more clearly.
What valid points did they have? They missed my point from the very beginning and felt impelled to post something, why is that?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 15 2009, 08:16 PM)
You cannot convict a person for internet bullying. It's not even legal for a town to declare internet bullying illegal. Anything besides a federal level is not really a law.
Under the US system, as spelled out in Amendments 9 and 10 to the US Constitution, Federal trumps State except where it can't. States can and do pass laws. Further, even towns and cities and counties may pass laws.
Now if you live in that town, the local laws are presumed to have effect on you. But if you are in Georgia, why would you expect a California law to apply to you? That's the problem with legislation and the Internet, which is in fact International in scope. Some countries attempt to put walls up to censor the Internet. Some countries (states, counties, cities and towns) attempt to control the Internet with laws. As it is, even if you commit murder while on vacation in Georgia, you typically have to be extradited if the law doesn't catch up to you until after you leave the state. And that is because the typical murder is a state crime, not a Federal one.
Thus the expression: "Let's not make a Federal case out of it." Meaning that there's no need to conduct a discussion in an harsh and adversarial manner when genteel conversation will suffice.
Now if you live in that town, the local laws are presumed to have effect on you. But if you are in Georgia, why would you expect a California law to apply to you? That's the problem with legislation and the Internet, which is in fact International in scope. Some countries attempt to put walls up to censor the Internet. Some countries (states, counties, cities and towns) attempt to control the Internet with laws. As it is, even if you commit murder while on vacation in Georgia, you typically have to be extradited if the law doesn't catch up to you until after you leave the state. And that is because the typical murder is a state crime, not a Federal one.
Thus the expression: "Let's not make a Federal case out of it." Meaning that there's no need to conduct a discussion in an harsh and adversarial manner when genteel conversation will suffice.
QUOTE (buttershug+ May 15 2009, 09:12 PM)
Including murder?
That's not federal in the States.
That's not federal in the States.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 16 2009 12:04 AM )
And you didn't answer my question:
Is it left up to the individual state to decide whether or not murder is illegal?
Well Junior, then you're right about not responding to you. If you don't mean what you say, there's no point in discussing it.
Of course, if you don't mean what you say, there's really no point in saying it in the first place.
Even if neither side had a valid point... it's not like someone buggered your favorite cat.
I am just saying that debate can go on without yelling "THIS ... IS ... SPARTA!" and kicking people down the well. Hmmm... wait.. that does sound like fun.
MjolnirPants
Likely a massive hijack but... I teach Karate and JuJitsu... I get the feeling you do something similar, am I correct? The name is a bit of a giveaway.
On the legal standpoint, I believe Rpenner is correct. In addition, the internet has brought a host of thorny legal issues. One of the big ones currently is the US laws against gambling on the internet. This is something that is illegal, common and nigh impossible to stop since most of the sites visited are not in the US. Legislating across borders is very difficult and most countries resent having another country intrude in this fashion.
Well Junior, then you're right about not responding to you. If you don't mean what you say, there's no point in discussing it.
Of course, if you don't mean what you say, there's really no point in saying it in the first place.
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."
Tell me, did you try to read that book and get stuck on the first sentence?
Oh so the fault of someone being called an idiot is the person being called it. I suppose then it really was the fault of the bartender that mr. John Doe was drinking and driving.
How about people actually try take responsibility for the words they type, words they say and actions they make.
Oh so the fault of someone being called an idiot is the person being called it. I suppose then it really was the fault of the bartender that mr. John Doe was drinking and driving.
How about people actually try take responsibility for the words they type, words they say and actions they make.
I do the same. One person (years ago, when I was posting on bulletin boards, instead of the internet) actually managed to do so by getting the phone number I was connecting from. He showed up at my house looking for a fight, and so I gave him one. That was the end of that, and we wound up being friends.
Then you were lucky. The next person might show up with a gun. It has happened.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Surely you have covered the self esteem topic in school? What makes self esteem become low?
Overreacting you say? I'm talking personal experience. As the school yard receiver.
Being Canadian also, maybe such offenses are more offensive to me than to those who are not.
So go look it up. The only interpretation of the constitution which matters is that of the SC.
We've already seen that you don't think too well, which is about all that can be expected from a drunken freshman.
Are you a liberal arts major? Your penchant for inexactitude and fuzzy thinking would make you an ideal English major.
Oh so the fault of someone being called an idiot is the person being called it. I suppose then it really was the fault of the bartender that mr. John Doe was drinking and driving.
How about people actually try take responsibility for the words they type, words they say and actions they make.
Then you were lucky. The next person might show up with a gun. It has happened.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Surely you have covered the self esteem topic in school? What makes self esteem become low?
Overreacting you say? I'm talking personal experience. As the school yard receiver.
Being Canadian also, maybe such offenses are more offensive to me than to those who are not.
1) Person being called the idiot should stop being an idiot, easy enough? People on this board call people for their mistakes, ignorance, etc. This differs from schoolyard antics, in which people taunt each other for stupid things like appearances, funny nicknames, etc. People don't know what i look like here, don't know what you look like, and are probably mature enough not to make fun of somebody without reasl reason.
2) This comes back to the idea, cyber bullying is almost always self invoked. Unless it originated from the schoolyard, and was taken onto the internet after. That is a slightly different scenerio than the other 2, but you don't have to read what people say. Do not mistake cyber bullying and real-life bullying. They have very different causes, your schoolyard memories are invalid in this case.
It is one thing to call some guy a crank, and call them on their being a "nutcase". It is another thing if you received harassment for being a "nerd" at school (one of the more common reasons for being bullied). One is completely within the control of the victim, the other is not. I feel for your past experiences, but you must not confuse your case with others.
3) Low self esteem does not originate from bullying solely. One could simply be naturally shy? They could be medically depressed? Their parent's could verbally/physically/etc abuse them as a child? Cyber bullying could be the reason they might tick, but it is not enough to be the sole cause. There is always more to the story
4) You are going off on anomalies. While what you say is possible, it is very unlikely. How many cases can you think of in which somebody was tracked down by a person on the other side of the country looking to murder their cyber-bully with a gun? What are the statistics for this in Canada, or the USA?
So go look it up. The only interpretation of the constitution which matters is that of the SC.
We've already seen that you don't think too well, which is about all that can be expected from a drunken freshman.
Are you a liberal arts major? Your penchant for inexactitude and fuzzy thinking would make you an ideal English major.
That's really intelligent.
So....
What would then happen if murder were repealed in one State, and such a case involving the decriminalization of murder were brought before the Supreme Court. Do you think by chance the Court would toss it out and say "Who cares?"
You don't even know your own argument at this point, son.
Is it left up to the individual state to decide whether or not murder is illegal?
QUOTE (AlexG+ May 16 2009 12:17 AM )
There is a Federal statute regarding homicide, but it only applies to crimes committed on Federal property.
Here's an SC ruling on the issue which holds that the state statute does not supercede the Federal statute on a Federal enclave.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-7151.ZO.html
But the Federal statute on murder does not apply except on federal property.
Here's an SC ruling on the issue which holds that the state statute does not supercede the Federal statute on a Federal enclave.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-7151.ZO.html
But the Federal statute on murder does not apply except on federal property.
That is correct and is explicitly spelled out in the statue.
For example, I believe in California there is no State law against public nudity. Therefore the secluded parts of State beaches may not subject to local laws forbidding it and thus become "nude beaches" even though this is by no overt act taken specifically on their behalf.
So if a state were to repeal its laws against murder, then murder would be legal in that State (except in US Federal buildings, VA hospitals, National Parks, against mail carriers and Federal agents and the like where the Federal government asserts authority) provided some other state law wasn't also broken (assault?).
For example, I believe in California there is no State law against public nudity. Therefore the secluded parts of State beaches may not subject to local laws forbidding it and thus become "nude beaches" even though this is by no overt act taken specifically on their behalf.
So if a state were to repeal its laws against murder, then murder would be legal in that State (except in US Federal buildings, VA hospitals, National Parks, against mail carriers and Federal agents and the like where the Federal government asserts authority) provided some other state law wasn't also broken (assault?).
QUOTE
And when I say a law isn't really a law, perhaps I wasn't speaking literally
Well Junior, then you're right about not responding to you. If you don't mean what you say, there's no point in discussing it.
Of course, if you don't mean what you say, there's really no point in saying it in the first place.
QUOTE
What valid points did they have?
Even if neither side had a valid point... it's not like someone buggered your favorite cat.
I am just saying that debate can go on without yelling "THIS ... IS ... SPARTA!" and kicking people down the well. Hmmm... wait.. that does sound like fun.
MjolnirPants
Likely a massive hijack but... I teach Karate and JuJitsu... I get the feeling you do something similar, am I correct? The name is a bit of a giveaway.
On the legal standpoint, I believe Rpenner is correct. In addition, the internet has brought a host of thorny legal issues. One of the big ones currently is the US laws against gambling on the internet. This is something that is illegal, common and nigh impossible to stop since most of the sites visited are not in the US. Legislating across borders is very difficult and most countries resent having another country intrude in this fashion.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+May 16 2009, 05:36 AM)
Just to throw my two cents in if I may...
I believe in being as polite as I can while still calling a spade a spade. Being Canadian, I have the typical inclination towards polite and well ordered discussion. I prefer to stay away from name calling or abuse, and I think this promotes better debates.
However...
1. I can understand the frustration of having to deal with people who will not accept any point but their own. I can see how constantly dealing with the lunatic fringe can make someone a tad grumpy.
2. Being polite does not mean that I tolerate BS.
3. For politeness to work, it has to be mutual. Some people simply cannot be reasoned with, so sometimes stronger methods are needed.
I have an old motto... "When reason fails, brute force prevails".
Lastly, commenting on Micheal J's post, I have often seen people claim that they will track me down. This is something I actively encourage... but I think I am rather non standard in this attitude and I don't recommend it for most.
Fellow Canadian, I find we are very few among online Forums, glad to know some of us are actually out there
.
I agree with your post, and i myself always try to be civil. I have my bad days, but for the most part i don't like to invoke anything. I'll call somebody on BS, but only if i have enough proof myself to back my claims.
@MjolnirPants: Thank you for the info on the tracking down. I figured that in almost any given case they would not so easily be able to track me down. But like i said above, i won't call complete BS on someone, unless i have enough proof to back it up, thanks.
I'd much rather not give somebody reason to track me down, but i shoot in competitions here. I can hit a dime at 20m without a scope. I've studied the Canadian legal system on self defense (not officially in school, through other sources), and it is weak, but there are loopholes i could explain to anybody if they would like to know.
I believe in being as polite as I can while still calling a spade a spade. Being Canadian, I have the typical inclination towards polite and well ordered discussion. I prefer to stay away from name calling or abuse, and I think this promotes better debates.
However...
1. I can understand the frustration of having to deal with people who will not accept any point but their own. I can see how constantly dealing with the lunatic fringe can make someone a tad grumpy.
2. Being polite does not mean that I tolerate BS.
3. For politeness to work, it has to be mutual. Some people simply cannot be reasoned with, so sometimes stronger methods are needed.
I have an old motto... "When reason fails, brute force prevails".
Lastly, commenting on Micheal J's post, I have often seen people claim that they will track me down. This is something I actively encourage... but I think I am rather non standard in this attitude and I don't recommend it for most.
Fellow Canadian, I find we are very few among online Forums, glad to know some of us are actually out there
. I agree with your post, and i myself always try to be civil. I have my bad days, but for the most part i don't like to invoke anything. I'll call somebody on BS, but only if i have enough proof myself to back my claims.
@MjolnirPants: Thank you for the info on the tracking down. I figured that in almost any given case they would not so easily be able to track me down. But like i said above, i won't call complete BS on someone, unless i have enough proof to back it up, thanks
. I'd much rather not give somebody reason to track me down, but i shoot in competitions here. I can hit a dime at 20m without a scope
. I've studied the Canadian legal system on self defense (not officially in school, through other sources), and it is weak, but there are loopholes i could explain to anybody if they would like to know.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 16 2009, 05:39 PM)
Well Junior, then you're right about not responding to you. If you don't mean what you say, there's no point in discussing it.
Of course, if you don't mean what you say, there's really no point in saying it in the first place.
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."
Tell me, did you try to read that book and get stuck on the first sentence?
As I said Junior, if you don't mean what you say, there's no point in saying it in the first place.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 16 2009, 05:54 PM)
As I said Junior, if you don't mean what you say, there's no point in saying it in the first place.
Sorry, gramp's. But I think you were more hasty to jump the gun rather than pause.
Sorry, gramp's. But I think you were more hasty to jump the gun rather than pause.
QUOTE (rpenner+May 16 2009, 05:36 PM)
So if a state were to repeal its laws against murder, then murder would be legal in that State (except in US Federal buildings, VA hospitals, National Parks, against mail carriers and Federal agents and the like where the Federal government asserts authority) provided some other state law wasn't also broken (assault?).
And did I not ask for more proof on this after I posted information on the code?
And I might add, what would happen if murder were deemed unconstitutional?
And did I not ask for more proof on this after I posted information on the code?
And I might add, what would happen if murder were deemed unconstitutional?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 16 2009, 06:03 PM)
And I might add, what would happen if murder were deemed unconstitutional?
Can anyone answer this question?
Is it to hard?
Can anyone answer this question?
Is it to hard?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 16 2009, 06:44 PM)
Can anyone answer this question?
Is it to hard?
You need to be more specific in your phraseology. Do you mean if the charge of Homicide (both Voluntary and Involuntary) or Premeditated Homicide were determined by the State not be prosecuted, what options would the Federal Government have?
I can answer that for you, if that is your question.
Is it to hard?
You need to be more specific in your phraseology. Do you mean if the charge of Homicide (both Voluntary and Involuntary) or Premeditated Homicide were determined by the State not be prosecuted, what options would the Federal Government have?
I can answer that for you, if that is your question.
No actually, I don't need to be more specific.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 16 2009, 07:22 PM)
No actually, I don't need to be more specific.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 16 2009, 07:22 PM)
No actually, I don't need to be more specific.
By the way, "murder" is unconstitutional. That is why it is prosecuted.
By the way, "murder" is unconstitutional. That is why it is prosecuted.
QUOTE (Derek1148+May 16 2009, 02:31 PM)
By the way, "murder" is unconstitutional. That is why it is prosecuted.
I don't think you're correct there. Murder isn't addressed by the constitution, except in the phrase "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" in Amendment V, and that is generally taken to refer to the actions of the government, not individuals.
Murder is prosecuted under State statutes, except when it takes place on Federal property, or involves Federal officers in the course of their duties, and then it's prosecuted as a violation of Federal statute, not as a constitutional issue.
I don't think you're correct there. Murder isn't addressed by the constitution, except in the phrase "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" in Amendment V, and that is generally taken to refer to the actions of the government, not individuals.
Murder is prosecuted under State statutes, except when it takes place on Federal property, or involves Federal officers in the course of their duties, and then it's prosecuted as a violation of Federal statute, not as a constitutional issue.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 16 2009, 07:49 PM)
Blah blah blah.
I think others would interpret the constitution differently.
Just a hunch.
But that still doesn't answer my question: If the State repeals laws about murder, what would happen then if murder was then deemed unconstitutional?
Wait a second. You're just blathering like an old man. Good show! Maybe I paid you too much attention in the past. Cherish it.
I think others would interpret the constitution differently.
Just a hunch.
But that still doesn't answer my question: If the State repeals laws about murder, what would happen then if murder was then deemed unconstitutional?
Wait a second. You're just blathering like an old man. Good show! Maybe I paid you too much attention in the past. Cherish it.
QUOTE
This is self-invoked "cyber bullying", that can easily be prevented if you just use your brain before posting.
Oh so the fault of someone being called an idiot is the person being called it. I suppose then it really was the fault of the bartender that mr. John Doe was drinking and driving.
How about people actually try take responsibility for the words they type, words they say and actions they make.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is self-invoked "cyber bullying", that can easily be prevented if you just use your brain before posting. |
Oh so the fault of someone being called an idiot is the person being called it. I suppose then it really was the fault of the bartender that mr. John Doe was drinking and driving.
How about people actually try take responsibility for the words they type, words they say and actions they make.
I do the same. One person (years ago, when I was posting on bulletin boards, instead of the internet) actually managed to do so by getting the phone number I was connecting from. He showed up at my house looking for a fight, and so I gave him one. That was the end of that, and we wound up being friends.
Then you were lucky. The next person might show up with a gun. It has happened.
QUOTE
I don't mean to sound like an a-hole to anyone that has, but your self esteem is waaaaay low if you actually take these insults seriously.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Surely you have covered the self esteem topic in school? What makes self esteem become low?
Overreacting you say? I'm talking personal experience. As the school yard receiver.
Being Canadian also, maybe such offenses are more offensive to me than to those who are not.
QUOTE
I think others would interpret the constitution differently.
So go look it up. The only interpretation of the constitution which matters is that of the SC.
We've already seen that you don't think too well, which is about all that can be expected from a drunken freshman.
Are you a liberal arts major? Your penchant for inexactitude and fuzzy thinking would make you an ideal English major.
QUOTE (H2O+May 16 2009, 08:14 PM)
Oh so the fault of someone being called an idiot is the person being called it. I suppose then it really was the fault of the bartender that mr. John Doe was drinking and driving.
How about people actually try take responsibility for the words they type, words they say and actions they make.
Then you were lucky. The next person might show up with a gun. It has happened.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Surely you have covered the self esteem topic in school? What makes self esteem become low?
Overreacting you say? I'm talking personal experience. As the school yard receiver.
Being Canadian also, maybe such offenses are more offensive to me than to those who are not.
1) Person being called the idiot should stop being an idiot, easy enough? People on this board call people for their mistakes, ignorance, etc. This differs from schoolyard antics, in which people taunt each other for stupid things like appearances, funny nicknames, etc. People don't know what i look like here, don't know what you look like, and are probably mature enough not to make fun of somebody without reasl reason.
2) This comes back to the idea, cyber bullying is almost always self invoked. Unless it originated from the schoolyard, and was taken onto the internet after. That is a slightly different scenerio than the other 2, but you don't have to read what people say. Do not mistake cyber bullying and real-life bullying. They have very different causes, your schoolyard memories are invalid in this case.
It is one thing to call some guy a crank, and call them on their being a "nutcase". It is another thing if you received harassment for being a "nerd" at school (one of the more common reasons for being bullied). One is completely within the control of the victim, the other is not. I feel for your past experiences, but you must not confuse your case with others.
3) Low self esteem does not originate from bullying solely. One could simply be naturally shy? They could be medically depressed? Their parent's could verbally/physically/etc abuse them as a child? Cyber bullying could be the reason they might tick, but it is not enough to be the sole cause. There is always more to the story
4) You are going off on anomalies. While what you say is possible, it is very unlikely. How many cases can you think of in which somebody was tracked down by a person on the other side of the country looking to murder their cyber-bully with a gun? What are the statistics for this in Canada, or the USA?
QUOTE (AlexG+May 16 2009, 08:48 PM)
So go look it up. The only interpretation of the constitution which matters is that of the SC.
We've already seen that you don't think too well, which is about all that can be expected from a drunken freshman.
Are you a liberal arts major? Your penchant for inexactitude and fuzzy thinking would make you an ideal English major.
That's really intelligent.
So....
What would then happen if murder were repealed in one State, and such a case involving the decriminalization of murder were brought before the Supreme Court. Do you think by chance the Court would toss it out and say "Who cares?"
You don't even know your own argument at this point, son.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 16 2009, 07:49 PM)
Murder is prosecuted under State statutes, except when it takes place on Federal property, or involves Federal officers in the course of their duties, and then it's prosecuted as a violation of Federal statute, not as a constitutional issue.
One example: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/241fin.php
One example: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/241fin.php
QUOTE (Derek1148+May 16 2009, 04:12 PM)
One example: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/241fin.php
Yes, but the statute is not murder, it's a civil rights conspiracy statute.
Yes, but the statute is not murder, it's a civil rights conspiracy statute.
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.