Seems kinda anti social to have a negitive feedback thing where people can give you a negitive feedback more then once. And thats happening to me I got like 6-7 from one guy alone. And like 3-6 from another guy who might be useing two accounts idk seems like the negitive feedback quotes he gives are the same every time on both accounts. Probably just two people that think alike tho. Anyhow...
Positive feedback would be nice if negitive feedback cant be removed for some reason. It just seems like a huge downer to see my negitive feed back score and not get any positive feedback score. People dont wana post on a site where they can get a negitive image just by one or two people pumping up your score honestly... Its bad business and will stop advertizing dollars in the long run... So thats my 2 cents on the matter!
Ah, the best of Physorg. Such, such... QUALITY we have at our disposal to protect us from all those horrid cranks of the world! Who needs Brownshirts in the Modern Day and Age?!?
Best,
Raphie
Raphie Frank Posted: Today at 3:19 PM
Positive Magpie, you said:
"Positive feedback would be nice if negitive feedback cant be removed for some reason. It just seems like a huge downer to see my negitive feed back score and not get any positive feedback score."
Here's a poz on principle. Sorry I am only giving you one...
Evans Posted: Today at 8:56 AM
Negative
<Max> Posted: Today at 8:55 AM
Negative
Delia Posted: Today at 7:57 AM
Negative Brain gone AWOL.
midwestern Posted: Jul 13 2008, 07:53 PM
Negative What the heck is this??
Jeremy Fisher Posted: Jul 13 2008, 06:50 AM
Negative Staggeringly stupid poster.
N O M Posted: Jul 12 2008, 02:35 AM
Negative -
excaza Posted: Jul 12 2008, 02:05 AM
Negative Wow, shut the hell up
Trippy Posted: Jul 12 2008, 01:51 AM
Negative STFU & GTFO
Evans Posted: Jul 12 2008, 01:49 AM
Negative -
<Max> Posted: Jul 12 2008, 01:49 AM
Negative -
Trout Posted: Jul 11 2008, 09:32 PM
Negative For this
Delia Posted: Jul 11 2008, 02:40 AM
Negative posing twerp.
N O M Posted: Apr 21 2008, 08:13 AM
Negative -
N O M Posted: Mar 17 2008, 01:26 AM
Negative poser
N O M Posted: Mar 9 2008, 04:30 AM
Negative -----
N O M Posted: Feb 24 2008, 07:43 AM
Negative Happy Neg Day
N O M Posted: Feb 15 2008, 12:09 AM
Negative learn some physics and go away
Trippy Posted: Feb 13 2008, 08:08 AM
Negative Go away, learn some physics.
Trout Posted: Feb 13 2008, 01:21 AM
Negative For this
N O M Posted: Feb 6 2008, 08:22 AM
Negative - - - - - -
N O M Posted: Jan 23 2008, 08:03 PM
Negative another of the many posers on the forum
Best,
Raphie
Raphie Frank Posted: Today at 3:19 PM
Positive Magpie, you said:
"Positive feedback would be nice if negitive feedback cant be removed for some reason. It just seems like a huge downer to see my negitive feed back score and not get any positive feedback score."
Here's a poz on principle. Sorry I am only giving you one...
Evans Posted: Today at 8:56 AM
Negative
<Max> Posted: Today at 8:55 AM
Negative
Delia Posted: Today at 7:57 AM
Negative Brain gone AWOL.
midwestern Posted: Jul 13 2008, 07:53 PM
Negative What the heck is this??
Jeremy Fisher Posted: Jul 13 2008, 06:50 AM
Negative Staggeringly stupid poster.
N O M Posted: Jul 12 2008, 02:35 AM
Negative -
excaza Posted: Jul 12 2008, 02:05 AM
Negative Wow, shut the hell up
Trippy Posted: Jul 12 2008, 01:51 AM
Negative STFU & GTFO
Evans Posted: Jul 12 2008, 01:49 AM
Negative -
<Max> Posted: Jul 12 2008, 01:49 AM
Negative -
Trout Posted: Jul 11 2008, 09:32 PM
Negative For this
Delia Posted: Jul 11 2008, 02:40 AM
Negative posing twerp.
N O M Posted: Apr 21 2008, 08:13 AM
Negative -
N O M Posted: Mar 17 2008, 01:26 AM
Negative poser
N O M Posted: Mar 9 2008, 04:30 AM
Negative -----
N O M Posted: Feb 24 2008, 07:43 AM
Negative Happy Neg Day
N O M Posted: Feb 15 2008, 12:09 AM
Negative learn some physics and go away
Trippy Posted: Feb 13 2008, 08:08 AM
Negative Go away, learn some physics.
Trout Posted: Feb 13 2008, 01:21 AM
Negative For this
N O M Posted: Feb 6 2008, 08:22 AM
Negative - - - - - -
N O M Posted: Jan 23 2008, 08:03 PM
Negative another of the many posers on the forum
Well, you could always sit and hope for the mistake positives. 
Jesus, this is like the whole political correctness crap about not saying to children "You failed" but instead "You're success has been deferred".
FFS, grow some balls you idiots. If you don't like being told "You're an ignorant jackass who doesn't know what he's talking about" then perhaps you should stop talking BS about things you don't know about?!
I know, I know, it's hard to grasp but if you don't know any physics and don't want to learn, **** off from a physics discussion site?
FFS, grow some balls you idiots. If you don't like being told "You're an ignorant jackass who doesn't know what he's talking about" then perhaps you should stop talking BS about things you don't know about?!
I know, I know, it's hard to grasp but if you don't know any physics and don't want to learn, **** off from a physics discussion site?
So, AN, let me be clear. You are DEFENDING abusive feedback that attacks people personally? You are DEFENDING posting under multiple aliases in order to attack others?
You may have balls, AN, but you're not exactly picking a winner of an issue here over which to stretch them out for the public view.
By the way, please don't change the subject. The issue here is basic civility, not Physics. And there are broader implications than simply what goes on within this itty-bitty little forum. Do things your way and we may well end up with an Internet that does a smashing virtual impersonation of Johannesburg, South Africa. Ever been there? Not to exaggerate, but to exaggerate, just watch Mad Max sometime. The feel in many places is very Post-Apocalyptic.
And right next door is sunny Zimbabwe. The big story when I was there several years ago was about training camps the Mugabe "Administration" had set up for teenagers. The goal of the camps? To train the kids to terrorize the adults. Pretty cool, huh?
Best,
Raphie
P.S. I just came across this fascinating idea AN, in a book by Richard Dawkins, "Unweaving the Rainbow." The general gist of his premise may well be familiar to you as I have discussed it in general terms many times upon this board. "SELF-FEEDING SPIRAL" is what he terms his liittle concept, one he metaphorically compares to a nuclear chain reaction. When applied to an individual, my name for the same phenomeneon is "fission with vision." Anyway, do a little research and see if you can figure out how one may apply the notion to social phenomena in general, and to Internet bad behaviour specifically. Dawkins makes many social allusions himself. Care to call him a "crank" as you (likely) would if I coined the same term?
You may have balls, AN, but you're not exactly picking a winner of an issue here over which to stretch them out for the public view.
By the way, please don't change the subject. The issue here is basic civility, not Physics. And there are broader implications than simply what goes on within this itty-bitty little forum. Do things your way and we may well end up with an Internet that does a smashing virtual impersonation of Johannesburg, South Africa. Ever been there? Not to exaggerate, but to exaggerate, just watch Mad Max sometime. The feel in many places is very Post-Apocalyptic.
And right next door is sunny Zimbabwe. The big story when I was there several years ago was about training camps the Mugabe "Administration" had set up for teenagers. The goal of the camps? To train the kids to terrorize the adults. Pretty cool, huh?
Best,
Raphie
P.S. I just came across this fascinating idea AN, in a book by Richard Dawkins, "Unweaving the Rainbow." The general gist of his premise may well be familiar to you as I have discussed it in general terms many times upon this board. "SELF-FEEDING SPIRAL" is what he terms his liittle concept, one he metaphorically compares to a nuclear chain reaction. When applied to an individual, my name for the same phenomeneon is "fission with vision." Anyway, do a little research and see if you can figure out how one may apply the notion to social phenomena in general, and to Internet bad behaviour specifically. Dawkins makes many social allusions himself. Care to call him a "crank" as you (likely) would if I coined the same term?
I've got to go with Magpies on this one, even though his first comment on any of my threads was something about "playing the evil salesman" or some such nonsense.
I occasionally check my feedback out of curiosity, and find that whenever a member takes an idiotic stance against me and fails miserably in attacking my position, he resorts to posting a Negative unsubstantiated remark (and usually skulks-off muttering).
I wouldn't mind it that much if I had the opportunity to set the record straight in the Feedback section right there, so when some imbecile says I don't know anything about optics, I can post a link to my US Patent in high-energy laser optics (#7,310,360), or when someone calls me an idiot, I can post a link to the ISPE Members' Homepages (ISPE is like Mensa, except the entrance requirements are scoring in the top 0.1% on a standardized test, like the LSAT or GRE or SAT).
Some of the negative feedback I think should be removable upon petition to PhysOrgForum, since a lot of it violates the rules against profanity or ad hominem attacks.
And when I see somebody with >90% positive feedback, the first thing that comes to mind is "sockpuppet".
I occasionally check my feedback out of curiosity, and find that whenever a member takes an idiotic stance against me and fails miserably in attacking my position, he resorts to posting a Negative unsubstantiated remark (and usually skulks-off muttering).
I wouldn't mind it that much if I had the opportunity to set the record straight in the Feedback section right there, so when some imbecile says I don't know anything about optics, I can post a link to my US Patent in high-energy laser optics (#7,310,360), or when someone calls me an idiot, I can post a link to the ISPE Members' Homepages (ISPE is like Mensa, except the entrance requirements are scoring in the top 0.1% on a standardized test, like the LSAT or GRE or SAT).
Some of the negative feedback I think should be removable upon petition to PhysOrgForum, since a lot of it violates the rules against profanity or ad hominem attacks.
And when I see somebody with >90% positive feedback, the first thing that comes to mind is "sockpuppet".
Raphie,
How many times did people like Euler and myself correct you on areas of physics you posted about repeatedly? You used to post BS about 'social string theory' or that you flicked through Polchinski's textbook on string theory but when I pressed you not one page could you (in your own words) 'concent mine'. None of the equations meant anything to you and even the pictures of things like contour integrals (second nature to any 2nd year maths student, never mind 4th or 5th or 6th years student doing string theory!) were completely beyond you.
You tried to defend your lies about using Polchinski's books in any kind of viable way and you fell flat on your face when you did that. And all the while you posted links to areas of maths you didn't understand, like the E8 Lie group or made posts which were essentially numerology, playing the equations (you, yet again, didn't understand) by putting in specific values. When pressed to do the simples bit of algebra expected of high school students, you couldn't do it.
You deserved a great deal of negative comments. When I (and others) called you a liar and a deliberate fraud repeatedly it wasn't an attempt at systematic undeserved abuse, it was in the context of a discussion where you repeated errors again and again, had lies and delusions exposed and all the while couldn't say "You know what, this is totally over my head, I don't understand anything in this book and I just mentioned it to get 'buzzword points' with people who might Google the name of the textbook and think I'm smart!", because that was the truth!.
And nice comparison with Zimbabwe. Yes, I'm the evil Mugabe, whose killing your family and responsible for hyper inflation. It's not your fault you never learn, it's mine. It's not your fault you tell lies about what books you read, it's mine.
Sorry, am I somehow magically forcing you to claim you're 'concept mining' a graduate level book on string theory, when you don't even know high school level maths?
Pray tell, whose fault is it when someone exposes a liar. The liar for lying or the exposer for exposing the lie?
Also, you notice that when you look at the ratio of "Positive feedback" to "Unique comments" I'm something like 3:1, while the negative one it's more like I'm 4:1. That says the people who dislike me neg me more regularly than the people who like me.
Plus, the people with the highest feedbacks and +ive scores are people like myself, Rpenner and Mr_Homm. Without a shadow of exageration, we're 3 of the 4 (the other is Euler) more knowledgable physicists on this forum. We've proven it again and again and the cranks have never come close to the level of information and explaination and application we put in our posts.
Now if there are (and we all know there are) sock puppets out there, neither I, nor Rpenner, nor Euler nor Mr_Homm can stop them attacking the feedback of others or giving or taking away from our feedback. But to say "If you're popular, you're a sock puppet" is just conspiracy theory BS.
Though I'm sure no crank believes me, I don't have multiple accounts here. I don't need multiple accounts. I've been known as 'AlphaNumeric' on many forums before and since this place and in none of them have I had or needed sock puppets. The fact cranks cannot attack my physics and so have to try to silence me with called of "Sock puppet" just adds weight to my "I don't need multiple accounts" comment.
How many times did people like Euler and myself correct you on areas of physics you posted about repeatedly? You used to post BS about 'social string theory' or that you flicked through Polchinski's textbook on string theory but when I pressed you not one page could you (in your own words) 'concent mine'. None of the equations meant anything to you and even the pictures of things like contour integrals (second nature to any 2nd year maths student, never mind 4th or 5th or 6th years student doing string theory!) were completely beyond you.
You tried to defend your lies about using Polchinski's books in any kind of viable way and you fell flat on your face when you did that. And all the while you posted links to areas of maths you didn't understand, like the E8 Lie group or made posts which were essentially numerology, playing the equations (you, yet again, didn't understand) by putting in specific values. When pressed to do the simples bit of algebra expected of high school students, you couldn't do it.
You deserved a great deal of negative comments. When I (and others) called you a liar and a deliberate fraud repeatedly it wasn't an attempt at systematic undeserved abuse, it was in the context of a discussion where you repeated errors again and again, had lies and delusions exposed and all the while couldn't say "You know what, this is totally over my head, I don't understand anything in this book and I just mentioned it to get 'buzzword points' with people who might Google the name of the textbook and think I'm smart!", because that was the truth!.
And nice comparison with Zimbabwe. Yes, I'm the evil Mugabe, whose killing your family and responsible for hyper inflation. It's not your fault you never learn, it's mine. It's not your fault you tell lies about what books you read, it's mine.
Sorry, am I somehow magically forcing you to claim you're 'concept mining' a graduate level book on string theory, when you don't even know high school level maths? Pray tell, whose fault is it when someone exposes a liar. The liar for lying or the exposer for exposing the lie?
QUOTE
And when I see somebody with >90% positive feedback, the first thing that comes to mind is "sockpuppet".
Then you don't bother to look very deep. Feedback rating go by a one person, one vote. And if you click on the feedback page for myself, though I 'only' have 83% feedback, you'll see I have feedback from a huge number of people, many of whom you can look up the posts of an see they aren't sock puppets. Also, you notice that when you look at the ratio of "Positive feedback" to "Unique comments" I'm something like 3:1, while the negative one it's more like I'm 4:1. That says the people who dislike me neg me more regularly than the people who like me.
Plus, the people with the highest feedbacks and +ive scores are people like myself, Rpenner and Mr_Homm. Without a shadow of exageration, we're 3 of the 4 (the other is Euler) more knowledgable physicists on this forum. We've proven it again and again and the cranks have never come close to the level of information and explaination and application we put in our posts.
Now if there are (and we all know there are) sock puppets out there, neither I, nor Rpenner, nor Euler nor Mr_Homm can stop them attacking the feedback of others or giving or taking away from our feedback. But to say "If you're popular, you're a sock puppet" is just conspiracy theory BS.
Though I'm sure no crank believes me, I don't have multiple accounts here. I don't need multiple accounts. I've been known as 'AlphaNumeric' on many forums before and since this place and in none of them have I had or needed sock puppets. The fact cranks cannot attack my physics and so have to try to silence me with called of "Sock puppet" just adds weight to my "I don't need multiple accounts" comment.
I cannot believe this forum. I joined today hoping to find like-minded friends sharing common interest, and for all my troubles, have been savaged twice; once by an extremely rude Jeremy Fisher and a really obnoxious individual named Trout.
How can this be allowed?
How can this be allowed?
Hi AN,GM,RF,M,
Both RF and Magpies (and GM) might be making a general point.
I think we both (all?) favour a 'learning' environment and what we have is something completely different. The consequence of the absence of a moderator is that the forum become like a game of football where (surprisingly) the cheerleaders are taking over from the actual players of the game.
-C2.
Both RF and Magpies (and GM) might be making a general point.
I think we both (all?) favour a 'learning' environment and what we have is something completely different. The consequence of the absence of a moderator is that the forum become like a game of football where (surprisingly) the cheerleaders are taking over from the actual players of the game.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Jul 19 2008, 06:56 PM)
Hi AN,GM,RF,M,
Both RF and Magpies (and GM) might be making a general point.
I think we both (all?) favour a 'learning' environment and what we have is something completely different. The consequence of the absence of a moderator is that the forum become like a game of football where (surprisingly) the cheerleaders are taking over from the actual players of the game.
-C2.
At least this forum has you Confused2
, for every Trout, hopefully there's one of you. Pehaps I will stay here after all.
Both RF and Magpies (and GM) might be making a general point.
I think we both (all?) favour a 'learning' environment and what we have is something completely different. The consequence of the absence of a moderator is that the forum become like a game of football where (surprisingly) the cheerleaders are taking over from the actual players of the game.
-C2.
At least this forum has you Confused2
, for every Trout, hopefully there's one of you. Pehaps I will stay here after all.
There are still some marvellous people posting here (AN is one of them - he just doesn't know it ) - I am not one of them.
Best wishes, -C2.
) - I am not one of them.Best wishes, -C2.
AlphaNumeric - I wasn't referencing you, but someone else whose feedback score was something like 95% and was clearly talking out his "*" when he got in a catfight with me over something I used to do for a living (and have a US Patent in).
At one time, I, too, had a positive score in the 80's, but due to sticking my neck out taking unpopular stands where I had personal experience supporting my positions, I got a lot of the same sort of negative feedback from the trolls and the sore losers of this board.
You've got to admit, they make up more than 5% of the members here, right?
At one time, I, too, had a positive score in the 80's, but due to sticking my neck out taking unpopular stands where I had personal experience supporting my positions, I got a lot of the same sort of negative feedback from the trolls and the sore losers of this board.
You've got to admit, they make up more than 5% of the members here, right?
I have often stated my belief that the rating system should be on individual posts. But after much thought, I have changed my mind. A fine-grained review system would suffer at least as much from the equality of reviewer weight when clearly our reviewers share little in mindset. In addition the expense of reviewing posts would cause to first order large statistical and bias effects. For example, a short review of the experimental distinction between the predictions of two theories of kinematics would likely gather only yawns from practicing physicists and negatives from certain people with a vested interest in ignoring the historical experimental record. Likewise, by sheer effort and volume of posts, other certain persons would start so many threads with identical content and would count on the fatigue of other forum members to get at least one of their posts though without critical review. They would then parade their uncontested post as alleged proof that their ideas were uncontested.
So the crude, coarse grain system is a more effective means of developing community trust in the content of posts, in my (new) opinion.
So the crude, coarse grain system is a more effective means of developing community trust in the content of posts, in my (new) opinion.
I take it back I wish there was just a feedback ability if there has to be anything. And I think it shouldnt keep track of positive or negitive at all. If people care to look into your feedback and read the reviews thats fine if not you shouldnt get punished for it. This imo is about punishment and if anyone whos a parent knows or at least should know punishment is the last resort. You hate it and your kid will hate it too. It only makes bonding harder later on. Rewarding is much better for changing or keeping someone on the ball.
I agree that having the option of commenting on some sore-loser's negative feedback would be preferable to what's here, now, and I also agree that moderators shouldn't be tasked with judging who's right and who's wrong on controversial topics, as they probably have their own biases. (I stopped posting on the MythBuster's website when they hired a heavy-handed mod who had little education and lots of opinions, and would close topics after posting her own ignorant opinion of who won the debate.)
As for negs, why do people I neg give me a poz?
Inquisitive, 4Dguy and Gorgeous.
Inquisitive, 4Dguy and Gorgeous.
I gave you a neg earlier, for "being a sock-puppet".
"Repentance" speaks much louder than "I'm sorry". Since I said I wouldn't make those claims anymore, I thought it was the right thing to do.
I do think you need to improve your (forum) communication, though. This is not something that happens "in person".
You need to show who you are quoting, and who you are responding to/asking of.
If you include a little more detail, you won't come across as just being "argumentative/confrontational".
J-
<ps. Beer w/Straw does something to the mind.>
"Repentance" speaks much louder than "I'm sorry". Since I said I wouldn't make those claims anymore, I thought it was the right thing to do.
I do think you need to improve your (forum) communication, though. This is not something that happens "in person".
You need to show who you are quoting, and who you are responding to/asking of.
If you include a little more detail, you won't come across as just being "argumentative/confrontational".
J-
<ps. Beer w/Straw does something to the mind.>
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 19 2008, 05:51 PM)
Raphie,
How many times did people like Euler and myself correct you on areas of physics you posted about repeatedly? You used to post BS about 'social string theory' or that you flicked through Polchinski's textbook on string theory but when I pressed you not one page could you (in your own words) 'concent mine'. None of the equations meant anything to you and even the pictures of things like contour integrals (second nature to any 2nd year maths student, never mind 4th or 5th or 6th years student doing string theory!) were completely beyond you.
You tried to defend your lies about using Polchinski's books in any kind of viable way and you fell flat on your face when you did that. And all the while you posted links to areas of maths you didn't understand, like the E8 Lie group or made posts which were essentially numerology, playing the equations (you, yet again, didn't understand) by putting in specific values. When pressed to do the simples bit of algebra expected of high school students, you couldn't do it.
You deserved a great deal of negative comments. When I (and others) called you a liar and a deliberate fraud repeatedly it wasn't an attempt at systematic undeserved abuse, it was in the context of a discussion where you repeated errors again and again, had lies and delusions exposed and all the while couldn't say "You know what, this is totally over my head, I don't understand anything in this book and I just mentioned it to get 'buzzword points' with people who might Google the name of the textbook and think I'm smart!", because that was the truth!.
And nice comparison with Zimbabwe. Yes, I'm the evil Mugabe, whose killing your family and responsible for hyper inflation. It's not your fault you never learn, it's mine. It's not your fault you tell lies about what books you read, it's mine. Sorry, am I somehow magically forcing you to claim you're 'concept mining' a graduate level book on string theory, when you don't even know high school level maths?
Pray tell, whose fault is it when someone exposes a liar. The liar for lying or the exposer for exposing the lie?
Then you don't bother to look very deep. Feedback rating go by a one person, one vote. And if you click on the feedback page for myself, though I 'only' have 83% feedback, you'll see I have feedback from a huge number of people, many of whom you can look up the posts of an see they aren't sock puppets.
Also, you notice that when you look at the ratio of "Positive feedback" to "Unique comments" I'm something like 3:1, while the negative one it's more like I'm 4:1. That says the people who dislike me neg me more regularly than the people who like me.
Plus, the people with the highest feedbacks and +ive scores are people like myself, Rpenner and Mr_Homm. Without a shadow of exageration, we're 3 of the 4 (the other is Euler) more knowledgable physicists on this forum. We've proven it again and again and the cranks have never come close to the level of information and explaination and application we put in our posts.
Now if there are (and we all know there are) sock puppets out there, neither I, nor Rpenner, nor Euler nor Mr_Homm can stop them attacking the feedback of others or giving or taking away from our feedback. But to say "If you're popular, you're a sock puppet" is just conspiracy theory BS.
Though I'm sure no crank believes me, I don't have multiple accounts here. I don't need multiple accounts. I've been known as 'AlphaNumeric' on many forums before and since this place and in none of them have I had or needed sock puppets. The fact cranks cannot attack my physics and so have to try to silence me with called of "Sock puppet" just adds weight to my "I don't need multiple accounts" comment.
Good lord, Alphamuneric, you really are virtually hopeless at times. First, I, if no one else, believe that you do NOT have multiple accounts. Perhaps that makes me a sucker, but I see such actions as inconsistent with what I know of you.
Second, I'll mostly ignore that you are completely changing the subject to make this about me and you, rather than about the issue of abuse in general. You are gifted and you are a leader, That confers upon you more responsibility than the average person to think about the consequences of your actions. Sorry, but that's the way it goes.
Third we'll pretend that you did not just make a bloody ridiculous comment in suggesting that Euler has done anything but insult me.
Fourth, I will make the point that I thank the Good Lord I don't believe in for the Democratic processes I yet believe in that yet protect us from people like you (at this stage in your life) achieving positions of power... most of the time. Can you imagine?
AN as Prime Minister:
====================
What?!? He said he didn't agree with that proposal to tar and feather all the Papparazzi?!? Shoot him on the spot! (hopefully with a camera... :-))
====================
Fifth, I'll also mostly ignore rather laughable statements such as publicly accusing me of telling LIES (I hear Cambridge University makes a rather smashing dictionary, AN. Shall I Amazon it to you for your birthday?) and/or suggesting by implication that I should stop "what if," STATED AS "WHAT-IF" explorations simply because you, for instance, "clue me in" to the rather breathtaking news that theoretical physicists set the speed of light to equal 1 (which even if I didn't know, RPenner made that point quite clear in one of his first posts to me).
To stick with that one example, that the speed of light is set to 1 is -- I know -- a very, very difficult concept to master without years and years of hard work and dedication and recourse to very, very sophisticated equations, but I managed to master it in my own trial and error intuitionistic manner just about the time I learned that 2+2 equals 4 ("standard" addition, of course...), a stunning feat of monumental proportions that I swear must have taken years off my life, because, you see, I had to check every single number in the Universe first to make sure that there were no other solutions...
Anyway, funny thing, because, you see, even though I KNOW the speed of light is set to one, I also quite understand that one of the implications of the Theory of Relativity is that that Unity is split between the four dimensions. Of course, without the equations, that understanding must "necessarily" be of a rather sorry and meagre and unsatisfactory kind, as Lord Kelvin, the famous cynic (now laughing stock) might say, but all the same this conundrum of "indivisibility in four parts" might give a rational person pause. It might even get one thinking... geometrically.
The Geometry of Light :: colloquium (June 3, 2008) :: @ the Max Planck Institute
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=345325
We will also pretend, for your sake, not mine, that you are not daft enough as to miss the half dozen or so times I have clearly stated that my intention is not to be a mathematician or physicist, but to know enough to be able to work with them (I do not believe myself there yet, precisely why I wish to go back to school), which does NOT preclude me either from a) yet exploring new approaches toward the number system geared towards artists and visual/spatial thinkers, and
continuing with my efforts to "callibrate" and "align" number progressions.
Second to last, I have not given up on "Social String Theory" because it will almost certainly happen eventually with or without me, that is, if in fact String Theory is the Theory of EVERYTHING. Or do people not count as a part of the Universe? In fact, Social String Theory ALREADY exists, in a manner of speaking (and in very nascent seed form). It is simply is not called by that name currently, but goes, at least in part, by names such as Network Theory, Interpersonal (& Transpersonal) Psychology, Evolutionary Biology, etc... It's a discipline waiting to happen, no less so than my notion of Social Cogeneration, which is simply a fancy way of stating that people need to work together and collaborate in order to confront the problems of the 21st Century (yada yada, we know what they are.) But back to string theory, social or otherwise, which seeks to explain and understand:
===================================
The behavior of one dimensional quantum objects
===================================
THAT, or something like that, quite a while back, is the best you could come up with as the fundamental underlying postulate behind string theory. If it's good enough for you. It's good enough for me, so don't pull out your ego six shooter triggers a 'hammerin' away talking about my ignorance when I was talking about the Intersection of Physics & Society BEFORE the "Is There a Physics of Society?" Conference in January, just as I was talking about Consilience BEFORE Columbia students started a Consilience magazine just this past February. Consider "Social String Theory" as a special case of the umbrella discipline and there you go. All else can proceed from there, but you'll have to forgive me if I defer "proving" something to you based on research that has not yet been conducted and that I currently and for many years will lack either adequate training or sufficient financial resources to conduct.
Finally, what is this with equations? As if EQUATIONS AND EQUATIONS ALONE DEFINE UNDERSTANDING???
Who knows light better, AN, a lighting designer who has lit two National Stages in two countries in Eastern Europe and been a visiting artist at the University of Rochester (that would be me) or you who can create EQUATIONS? Who knows light better, AN, someone who can sculpt it, shape it, blend it, scatter it and melt it through a 4-D kinetic space, or one who can numerically define it?
Do you suppose the answer might not be "It depends?"
Best,
Raphie
P.S. On Polchinksi - I did what any reasonably intelligent person might do. I went straight to the best to see what it was I didn't know and to start getting sense of terminology. It's no different than when I used to read the Czech dictionary on the bus while living in Prague. You think I got nothing out of that just because I didn't understand all of it? Come on, AN... stop this inane fixation on Polchinski...
How many times did people like Euler and myself correct you on areas of physics you posted about repeatedly? You used to post BS about 'social string theory' or that you flicked through Polchinski's textbook on string theory but when I pressed you not one page could you (in your own words) 'concent mine'. None of the equations meant anything to you and even the pictures of things like contour integrals (second nature to any 2nd year maths student, never mind 4th or 5th or 6th years student doing string theory!) were completely beyond you.
You tried to defend your lies about using Polchinski's books in any kind of viable way and you fell flat on your face when you did that. And all the while you posted links to areas of maths you didn't understand, like the E8 Lie group or made posts which were essentially numerology, playing the equations (you, yet again, didn't understand) by putting in specific values. When pressed to do the simples bit of algebra expected of high school students, you couldn't do it.
You deserved a great deal of negative comments. When I (and others) called you a liar and a deliberate fraud repeatedly it wasn't an attempt at systematic undeserved abuse, it was in the context of a discussion where you repeated errors again and again, had lies and delusions exposed and all the while couldn't say "You know what, this is totally over my head, I don't understand anything in this book and I just mentioned it to get 'buzzword points' with people who might Google the name of the textbook and think I'm smart!", because that was the truth!.
And nice comparison with Zimbabwe. Yes, I'm the evil Mugabe, whose killing your family and responsible for hyper inflation. It's not your fault you never learn, it's mine. It's not your fault you tell lies about what books you read, it's mine.
Sorry, am I somehow magically forcing you to claim you're 'concept mining' a graduate level book on string theory, when you don't even know high school level maths?Pray tell, whose fault is it when someone exposes a liar. The liar for lying or the exposer for exposing the lie?
Then you don't bother to look very deep. Feedback rating go by a one person, one vote. And if you click on the feedback page for myself, though I 'only' have 83% feedback, you'll see I have feedback from a huge number of people, many of whom you can look up the posts of an see they aren't sock puppets.
Also, you notice that when you look at the ratio of "Positive feedback" to "Unique comments" I'm something like 3:1, while the negative one it's more like I'm 4:1. That says the people who dislike me neg me more regularly than the people who like me.
Plus, the people with the highest feedbacks and +ive scores are people like myself, Rpenner and Mr_Homm. Without a shadow of exageration, we're 3 of the 4 (the other is Euler) more knowledgable physicists on this forum. We've proven it again and again and the cranks have never come close to the level of information and explaination and application we put in our posts.
Now if there are (and we all know there are) sock puppets out there, neither I, nor Rpenner, nor Euler nor Mr_Homm can stop them attacking the feedback of others or giving or taking away from our feedback. But to say "If you're popular, you're a sock puppet" is just conspiracy theory BS.
Though I'm sure no crank believes me, I don't have multiple accounts here. I don't need multiple accounts. I've been known as 'AlphaNumeric' on many forums before and since this place and in none of them have I had or needed sock puppets. The fact cranks cannot attack my physics and so have to try to silence me with called of "Sock puppet" just adds weight to my "I don't need multiple accounts" comment.
Good lord, Alphamuneric, you really are virtually hopeless at times. First, I, if no one else, believe that you do NOT have multiple accounts. Perhaps that makes me a sucker, but I see such actions as inconsistent with what I know of you.
Second, I'll mostly ignore that you are completely changing the subject to make this about me and you, rather than about the issue of abuse in general. You are gifted and you are a leader, That confers upon you more responsibility than the average person to think about the consequences of your actions. Sorry, but that's the way it goes.
Third we'll pretend that you did not just make a bloody ridiculous comment in suggesting that Euler has done anything but insult me.
Fourth, I will make the point that I thank the Good Lord I don't believe in for the Democratic processes I yet believe in that yet protect us from people like you (at this stage in your life) achieving positions of power... most of the time. Can you imagine?
AN as Prime Minister:
====================
What?!? He said he didn't agree with that proposal to tar and feather all the Papparazzi?!? Shoot him on the spot! (hopefully with a camera... :-))
====================
Fifth, I'll also mostly ignore rather laughable statements such as publicly accusing me of telling LIES (I hear Cambridge University makes a rather smashing dictionary, AN. Shall I Amazon it to you for your birthday?) and/or suggesting by implication that I should stop "what if," STATED AS "WHAT-IF" explorations simply because you, for instance, "clue me in" to the rather breathtaking news that theoretical physicists set the speed of light to equal 1 (which even if I didn't know, RPenner made that point quite clear in one of his first posts to me).
To stick with that one example, that the speed of light is set to 1 is -- I know -- a very, very difficult concept to master without years and years of hard work and dedication and recourse to very, very sophisticated equations, but I managed to master it in my own trial and error intuitionistic manner just about the time I learned that 2+2 equals 4 ("standard" addition, of course...), a stunning feat of monumental proportions that I swear must have taken years off my life, because, you see, I had to check every single number in the Universe first to make sure that there were no other solutions...
Anyway, funny thing, because, you see, even though I KNOW the speed of light is set to one, I also quite understand that one of the implications of the Theory of Relativity is that that Unity is split between the four dimensions. Of course, without the equations, that understanding must "necessarily" be of a rather sorry and meagre and unsatisfactory kind, as Lord Kelvin, the famous cynic (now laughing stock) might say, but all the same this conundrum of "indivisibility in four parts" might give a rational person pause. It might even get one thinking... geometrically.
The Geometry of Light :: colloquium (June 3, 2008) :: @ the Max Planck Institute
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=345325
We will also pretend, for your sake, not mine, that you are not daft enough as to miss the half dozen or so times I have clearly stated that my intention is not to be a mathematician or physicist, but to know enough to be able to work with them (I do not believe myself there yet, precisely why I wish to go back to school), which does NOT preclude me either from a) yet exploring new approaches toward the number system geared towards artists and visual/spatial thinkers, and
continuing with my efforts to "callibrate" and "align" number progressions.Second to last, I have not given up on "Social String Theory" because it will almost certainly happen eventually with or without me, that is, if in fact String Theory is the Theory of EVERYTHING. Or do people not count as a part of the Universe? In fact, Social String Theory ALREADY exists, in a manner of speaking (and in very nascent seed form). It is simply is not called by that name currently, but goes, at least in part, by names such as Network Theory, Interpersonal (& Transpersonal) Psychology, Evolutionary Biology, etc... It's a discipline waiting to happen, no less so than my notion of Social Cogeneration, which is simply a fancy way of stating that people need to work together and collaborate in order to confront the problems of the 21st Century (yada yada, we know what they are.) But back to string theory, social or otherwise, which seeks to explain and understand:
===================================
The behavior of one dimensional quantum objects
===================================
THAT, or something like that, quite a while back, is the best you could come up with as the fundamental underlying postulate behind string theory. If it's good enough for you. It's good enough for me, so don't pull out your ego six shooter triggers a 'hammerin' away talking about my ignorance when I was talking about the Intersection of Physics & Society BEFORE the "Is There a Physics of Society?" Conference in January, just as I was talking about Consilience BEFORE Columbia students started a Consilience magazine just this past February. Consider "Social String Theory" as a special case of the umbrella discipline and there you go. All else can proceed from there, but you'll have to forgive me if I defer "proving" something to you based on research that has not yet been conducted and that I currently and for many years will lack either adequate training or sufficient financial resources to conduct.
Finally, what is this with equations? As if EQUATIONS AND EQUATIONS ALONE DEFINE UNDERSTANDING???
Who knows light better, AN, a lighting designer who has lit two National Stages in two countries in Eastern Europe and been a visiting artist at the University of Rochester (that would be me) or you who can create EQUATIONS? Who knows light better, AN, someone who can sculpt it, shape it, blend it, scatter it and melt it through a 4-D kinetic space, or one who can numerically define it?
Do you suppose the answer might not be "It depends?"
Best,
Raphie
P.S. On Polchinksi - I did what any reasonably intelligent person might do. I went straight to the best to see what it was I didn't know and to start getting sense of terminology. It's no different than when I used to read the Czech dictionary on the bus while living in Prague. You think I got nothing out of that just because I didn't understand all of it? Come on, AN... stop this inane fixation on Polchinski...
Feel free to elaborate on the below, Jeremy.
================================
Jeremy Fisher Posted: Today at 1:50 AM
Negative Idiot. Complete, utter and raving idiot.
================================
Best,
Raphie
================================
Jeremy Fisher Posted: Today at 1:50 AM
Negative Idiot. Complete, utter and raving idiot.
================================
Best,
Raphie
QUOTE (magpies+Jul 19 2008, 11:58 PM)
And thats happening to me I got like 6-7 from one guy alone.
Thanks for reminding me I was behind. It's 9 now
Thanks for reminding me I was behind. It's 9 now
And you´re due to give me one tomorrow - don´t forget now - this is such an important role you have defined for yourself.
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jul 19 2008, 12:57 PM)
(...)book by Richard Dawkins(...)Care to call him a "crank"(...)?
Don't bother, there is nothing wrong with what I call him.
Don't bother, there is nothing wrong with what I call him.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 19 2008, 08:20 PM)
I have often stated my belief that the rating system should be on individual posts. But after much thought, I have changed my mind. A fine-grained review system would suffer at least as much from the equality of reviewer weight when clearly our reviewers share little in mindset. In addition the expense of reviewing posts would cause to first order large statistical and bias effects. For example, a short review of the experimental distinction between the predictions of two theories of kinematics would likely gather only yawns from practicing physicists and negatives from certain people with a vested interest in ignoring the historical experimental record. Likewise, by sheer effort and volume of posts, other certain persons would start so many threads with identical content and would count on the fatigue of other forum members to get at least one of their posts though without critical review. They would then parade their uncontested post as alleged proof that their ideas were uncontested.
So the crude, coarse grain system is a more effective means of developing community trust in the content of posts, in my (new) opinion.
Interesting perspective RPenner. Many thanks for sharing it with us.
Best,
Raphie
So the crude, coarse grain system is a more effective means of developing community trust in the content of posts, in my (new) opinion.
Interesting perspective RPenner. Many thanks for sharing it with us.
Best,
Raphie
NOM,
4 hours late with my neg - your master will not be pleased!!!!!
E3
4 hours late with my neg - your master will not be pleased!!!!!
E3
pos - or neg -
To me any feedback should be mirrored against Who is the sender of said feedback. I am not unduely worried about neg's from so-called FM people - (actually I appreciate everyone) and any feedback score tells its own and fairly precise story when individual feedbacks are being "named". It would be a pity to remowe any feedbacks - and to me a feedback tells at least as much about the sender as about the receiver.
There are no bad guys and no good guys - but there are very varying qualities of good behavior ! - Good and bad is much more a matter about social types - represented on one extreme of the spectrum as these nitty gritty controller types with high affection for stringent science and on the other extreme of the spectrum as anarchistic artistic philosophical slumpy types. And these two extremes hate each other - very affectionate.
To me any feedback should be mirrored against Who is the sender of said feedback. I am not unduely worried about neg's from so-called FM people - (actually I appreciate everyone) and any feedback score tells its own and fairly precise story when individual feedbacks are being "named". It would be a pity to remowe any feedbacks - and to me a feedback tells at least as much about the sender as about the receiver.
There are no bad guys and no good guys - but there are very varying qualities of good behavior ! - Good and bad is much more a matter about social types - represented on one extreme of the spectrum as these nitty gritty controller types with high affection for stringent science and on the other extreme of the spectrum as anarchistic artistic philosophical slumpy types. And these two extremes hate each other - very affectionate.
QUOTE
represented on one extreme of the spectrum as these nitty gritty controller types with high affection for stringent science and on the other extreme of the spectrum as anarchistic artistic philosophical slumpy types. And these two extremes hate each other
But what if you're both?
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jul 22 2008, 10:12 PM)
But what if you're both?
g.
then you rock.
QUOTE (newton+Jul 22 2008, 02:44 PM)
then you rock.
...and so does the boat!
But surely that is preferable to lying becalmed in a stagnant pond?
Oooh I feel so.......in motion........ALIVE!!!
g.
...and so does the boat!
But surely that is preferable to lying becalmed in a stagnant pond?
Oooh I feel so.......in motion........ALIVE!!!
g.
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jul 20 2008, 01:57 AM)
Feel free to elaborate on the below, Jeremy.
================================
Jeremy Fisher Posted: Today at 1:50 AM
Negative Idiot. Complete, utter and raving idiot.
================================
Best,
Raphie
Not quite the kind of elaboration I had in mind, Jeremy Fisher, but it's a start....
=================================================
Jeremy Fisher Posted: Today at 12:51 AM
Negative I see you've picked up a following and have quite a reader base, Raphie. Congratulations (I know you have your column inside StevenA's anus).
=================================================
A nice turn of phrase, however, that almost, but not quite, masks the disturbingly infantile nursery school mentality lying beneath.
Best,
Raphie
===========================================
P.S. A Note sent to the Moderators of this forum... Feel free to let
them know as well if you think such gratutitous hostility ought to be
given free reign, and the above rather lewdish comments are relatively
mild.
ESPECIALLY let them know if you have a positive feedback rating.
The complaints of those most affected are, ironically, the least likely
to be given a fair hearing... Best, RF
===========================================
This is unacceptable conduct. RPenner advocates the "Coarse grain" approach to feedback upon this forum. I'm not sure I can wholeheartedly agree...
Kindest Regards,
Raphie Frank
================================
Jeremy Fisher Posted: Today at 1:50 AM
Negative Idiot. Complete, utter and raving idiot.
================================
Best,
Raphie
Not quite the kind of elaboration I had in mind, Jeremy Fisher, but it's a start....
=================================================
Jeremy Fisher Posted: Today at 12:51 AM
Negative I see you've picked up a following and have quite a reader base, Raphie. Congratulations (I know you have your column inside StevenA's anus).
=================================================
A nice turn of phrase, however, that almost, but not quite, masks the disturbingly infantile nursery school mentality lying beneath.
Best,
Raphie
===========================================
P.S. A Note sent to the Moderators of this forum... Feel free to let
them know as well if you think such gratutitous hostility ought to be
given free reign, and the above rather lewdish comments are relatively
mild.
ESPECIALLY let them know if you have a positive feedback rating.
The complaints of those most affected are, ironically, the least likely
to be given a fair hearing... Best, RF
===========================================
This is unacceptable conduct. RPenner advocates the "Coarse grain" approach to feedback upon this forum. I'm not sure I can wholeheartedly agree...
Kindest Regards,
Raphie Frank
My humble opinion on the original topic:
The negative feedback feature is useful for posters just learning physics. For example, the only people able to consistently help me on my physics, math, and chemistry homework (so that I get the CORRECT answer according to my professors) are the posters with POSITIVE feedback scores. NO ONE with a negative feedback score has ever offered ANY useful help on my homework or physics questions that turned out to be LEGITIMATE according to my professors.
Thus, on average, posters with negative feedback tend to be posters whose advise on physics should be taken with more caution than usual. On average, this seems to work for me, as any advise from posters with positive net feedback scores tends to be correct, while the converse is true from posters with negative feedback scores. Therefore, the current feedback system is quite useful.
HOWEVER, I do not believe that abusive comments are needed in all situations. Only when the negative feedback winner in question consistently shows that he/she absolutely refuses to correct their errors, and refuses to cease attempting to lead beginners astray.
The negative feedback feature is useful for posters just learning physics. For example, the only people able to consistently help me on my physics, math, and chemistry homework (so that I get the CORRECT answer according to my professors) are the posters with POSITIVE feedback scores. NO ONE with a negative feedback score has ever offered ANY useful help on my homework or physics questions that turned out to be LEGITIMATE according to my professors.
Thus, on average, posters with negative feedback tend to be posters whose advise on physics should be taken with more caution than usual. On average, this seems to work for me, as any advise from posters with positive net feedback scores tends to be correct, while the converse is true from posters with negative feedback scores. Therefore, the current feedback system is quite useful.
HOWEVER, I do not believe that abusive comments are needed in all situations. Only when the negative feedback winner in question consistently shows that he/she absolutely refuses to correct their errors, and refuses to cease attempting to lead beginners astray.
o.O
I think it is silly how much time is being put into this silly request. Everyone gets negative feed back at some point or another, and a good deal of that feed back is not necessarily deserved. DEAL WITH IT.
And besides, if anyone really cares about feedback, I am sure they can pick out the nonsense posts. You should feel special if someone posts feedback to your user anyways... it just means they care.
And for those of you who seem to be incapable of spelling correctly, I have two suggestions:
1) Use the check spelling button at the bottom of the page.
2) Use Firefox, it has a built in spell-check -- so might other browsers, but I would not know.
adding a third) Do both 1 and 2.
I think it is silly how much time is being put into this silly request. Everyone gets negative feed back at some point or another, and a good deal of that feed back is not necessarily deserved. DEAL WITH IT.
And besides, if anyone really cares about feedback, I am sure they can pick out the nonsense posts. You should feel special if someone posts feedback to your user anyways... it just means they care.
And for those of you who seem to be incapable of spelling correctly, I have two suggestions:
1) Use the check spelling button at the bottom of the page.
2) Use Firefox, it has a built in spell-check -- so might other browsers, but I would not know.
adding a third) Do both 1 and 2.
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.