It's strange, guys I've never talked to seems to post negative feedback to me, when i check on them they haven't posted one single idea of their own.
They seem tailor made for just posting negative remarks.
It would be relatively easy for the invisible providers of this site to post their IP:s and show if they come from the same range. Like a public pillory :)
I don't expect them to feel as free with their public puking then
I'm guessing there's maximum somewhere around ten people doing this kind of sh*
Then we have the 'hang ons' of course.
Either that or make PhysOrg into a 'closed source' where them sorry jerkheads can masturbate to each other in solitary mode.
As far I'm concerned I like to be here discussing physics, and no, I've never said that I'm working with it so this kind of sh* are so f*ng low under the belt that it sucks :)
Ahh, not in a good way though ::))
This site is getting a sorry place to be.
QUOTE (yor_on+Mar 31 2008, 04:22 AM)
It's strange, guys I've never talked to seems to post negative feedback to me, when i check on them they haven't posted one single idea of their own.
They seem tailor made for just posting negative remarks.
It would be relatively easy for the invisible providers of this site to post their IP:s and show if they come from the same range. Like a public pillory
I don't expect them to feel as free with their public puking then
I'm guessing there's maximum somewhere around ten people doing this kind of sh*
Then we have the 'hang ons' of course.
Either that or make PhysOrg into a 'closed source' where them sorry jerkheads can masturbate to each other in solitary mode.
As far I'm concerned I like to be here discussing physics, and no, I've never said that I'm working with it so this kind of sh* are so f*ng low under the belt that it sucks
Ahh, not in a good way though :)
This site is getting a sorry place to be.
Yes, there are just a few of the harassers under different names. If I wrote the code for the forum, I'd add some weighting factors, but it would never be perfect for everyone (but I very much agree that it's quite annoying everytime the "new" member comes along, then proceeds to post a dozen 2 sentence "Alpha class" insults and then goes and spams negatives to half the board and positives to the clone accounts ... it makes me grimace to think of electronic voting in public elections
).
They seem tailor made for just posting negative remarks.
It would be relatively easy for the invisible providers of this site to post their IP:s and show if they come from the same range. Like a public pillory
I don't expect them to feel as free with their public puking then
I'm guessing there's maximum somewhere around ten people doing this kind of sh*
Then we have the 'hang ons' of course.
Either that or make PhysOrg into a 'closed source' where them sorry jerkheads can masturbate to each other in solitary mode.
As far I'm concerned I like to be here discussing physics, and no, I've never said that I'm working with it so this kind of sh* are so f*ng low under the belt that it sucks
Ahh, not in a good way though :
)This site is getting a sorry place to be.
Yes, there are just a few of the harassers under different names. If I wrote the code for the forum, I'd add some weighting factors, but it would never be perfect for everyone (but I very much agree that it's quite annoying everytime the "new" member comes along, then proceeds to post a dozen 2 sentence "Alpha class" insults and then goes and spams negatives to half the board and positives to the clone accounts ... it makes me grimace to think of electronic voting in public elections
).
QUOTE (yor_on+)
It's strange, guys I've never talked to seems to post negative feedback to me, when i check on them they haven't posted one single idea of their own.
We don't need to have theories/ideas/ramblings of our own to distinguish pseudoscience from real science.
Yes, there are just a few of the harassers under different names. If I wrote the code for the forum, I'd add some weighting factors, but it would never be perfect for everyone (but I very much agree that it's quite annoying everytime the "new" member comes along, then proceeds to post a dozen 2 sentence "Alpha class" insults and then goes and spams negatives to half the board and positives to the clone accounts ... it makes me grimace to think of electronic voting in public elections).
That's beyond ridiculous. The only "evidence" you have is join dates, which basically means nothing. But because it makes you feel better to assume there';s only one person with a half dozen names calling you an idiot, you cling to this assumption like there's no tomorrow. Unfortunately, the FM seems to be one username per person. Admittedly, a few of the FM have made sockpuppets after being banned, but those labeled as "cranks" have demonstratable and admittedly made FAR FAR more sockpuppets, often using two or more at the same time, and often being caught doing so.
We don't need to have theories/ideas/ramblings of our own to distinguish pseudoscience from real science.
QUOTE (StevenA+)
Yes, there are just a few of the harassers under different names.
And you've never managed to prove this? Wowzers!
You've accused me, Dallas, Cecil P Abstract, Trout and Crankoid of being Alpha's sockpuppets but you've never managed to prove it. Not once. You just keep spouting "You're a sockpuppet of Alpha!" in the hope someone will believe you. And I've no doubt that's exactly what you're going to do after reading this post.
And you've never managed to prove this? Wowzers!
You've accused me, Dallas, Cecil P Abstract, Trout and Crankoid of being Alpha's sockpuppets but you've never managed to prove it. Not once. You just keep spouting "You're a sockpuppet of Alpha!" in the hope someone will believe you. And I've no doubt that's exactly what you're going to do after reading this post.
Don't worry Doc.
Nobody accused you of having ideas if your own.
You just here for the ride right :)
Nobody accused you of having ideas if your own.
You just here for the ride right :)
A poser is clearly someone whom claims to be, something he is not.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
A poser is clearly someone whom claims to be, something he is not.
Locally it seems to be (one of) the insults that are used instead of the rather more honest "I want you to go away because I don't like you.".
-C2.
Locally it seems to be (one of) the insults that are used instead of the rather more honest "I want you to go away because I don't like you.".
-C2.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Mar 31 2008, 06:01 AM)
You've accused me, Dallas, Cecil P Abstract, Trout and Crankoid of being Alpha's sockpuppets but you've never managed to prove it. Not once. You just keep spouting "You're a sockpuppet of Alpha!" in the hope someone will believe you. And I've no doubt that's exactly what you're going to do after reading this post.
You forgot Empress Palpatine and some others, but it becomes obvious over time which is the latest "new" guy that's going to spam everyone. (Yes, and you were one of them)
It becomes obvious that you're just making fake accounts (for example, your join date is 3/6/08 and Cecil P Abstract, that you mention, stopped posting after February so you just switched toons again). The content of your posts is similarly fluff and this is just your ~6th incarnation.
It would be interesting to see the rating shifts without such redundant representation
. When we add in the manner with which you throw your ignorance and immaturity around and detract from some of the better threads on the site you're a definite liability here and would be doing the site a favor by leaving, but obviously you have little concern about others here so I don't expect you to do that, but instead you'll continue to resort to a very typical (and potentially avoidable to some extent) historic form of social science in which peer pressure, voting and fake ballots are the predominant determining factors in what's considered to be true (and the fact that you guys are products of and employed by tax dollars doesn't surprise me either).
You forgot Empress Palpatine and some others, but it becomes obvious over time which is the latest "new" guy that's going to spam everyone. (Yes, and you were one of them)
It becomes obvious that you're just making fake accounts (for example, your join date is 3/6/08 and Cecil P Abstract, that you mention, stopped posting after February so you just switched toons again). The content of your posts is similarly fluff and this is just your ~6th incarnation.
It would be interesting to see the rating shifts without such redundant representation
. When we add in the manner with which you throw your ignorance and immaturity around and detract from some of the better threads on the site you're a definite liability here and would be doing the site a favor by leaving, but obviously you have little concern about others here so I don't expect you to do that, but instead you'll continue to resort to a very typical (and potentially avoidable to some extent) historic form of social science in which peer pressure, voting and fake ballots are the predominant determining factors in what's considered to be true (and the fact that you guys are products of and employed by tax dollars doesn't surprise me either).
I hate to admit it but when looking at some of the comments made in 'View/Add Feedback' I find some totally hilarious. Humor is cool even when fiendish.
But comments without substance like those telling me that I'm posing for something I'm not?
There's no truth and no humor to it, just ill will
Perhaps this site need a 'View/Add Feedback' of its own defining what kind of 'stuff' that is 'scientific' today.
So that those of us who doesn't know won't disturb the peace here?
We open it up and see what the 'peace corp cybernetics' have defined as being the 'correct' subject of today.
I'm sure there are some of them who is slobbering over this idea this very minute:)
How about it?
But comments without substance like those telling me that I'm posing for something I'm not?
There's no truth and no humor to it, just ill will
Perhaps this site need a 'View/Add Feedback' of its own defining what kind of 'stuff' that is 'scientific' today.
So that those of us who doesn't know won't disturb the peace here?
We open it up and see what the 'peace corp cybernetics' have defined as being the 'correct' subject of today.
I'm sure there are some of them who is slobbering over this idea this very minute:)
How about it?
QUOTE (yor_on+Mar 31 2008, 02:41 PM)
I hate to admit it but when looking at some of the comments made in 'View/Add Feedback' I find some totally hilarious. Humor is cool even when fiendish.
But comments without substance like those telling me that I'm posing for something I'm not?
There's no truth and no humor to it, just ill will
Perhaps this site need a 'View/Add Feedback' of its own defining what kind of 'stuff' that is 'scientific' today.
So that those of us who doesn't know won't disturb the peace here?
We open it up and see what the 'peace corp cybernetics' have defined as being the 'correct' subject of today.
I'm sure there are some of them who is slobbering over this idea this very minute:)
How about it?
But you have to ask yourself, in the overall scheme of things, does any of this matter?
But comments without substance like those telling me that I'm posing for something I'm not?
There's no truth and no humor to it, just ill will
Perhaps this site need a 'View/Add Feedback' of its own defining what kind of 'stuff' that is 'scientific' today.
So that those of us who doesn't know won't disturb the peace here?
We open it up and see what the 'peace corp cybernetics' have defined as being the 'correct' subject of today.
I'm sure there are some of them who is slobbering over this idea this very minute:)
How about it?
But you have to ask yourself, in the overall scheme of things, does any of this matter?
QUOTE (StevenA+Mar 30 2008, 11:44 PM)
Yes, there are just a few of the harassers under different names. If I wrote the code for the forum, I'd add some weighting factors, but it would never be perfect for everyone (but I very much agree that it's quite annoying everytime the "new" member comes along, then proceeds to post a dozen 2 sentence "Alpha class" insults and then goes and spams negatives to half the board and positives to the clone accounts ... it makes me grimace to think of electronic voting in public elections
). That's beyond ridiculous. The only "evidence" you have is join dates, which basically means nothing. But because it makes you feel better to assume there';s only one person with a half dozen names calling you an idiot, you cling to this assumption like there's no tomorrow. Unfortunately, the FM seems to be one username per person. Admittedly, a few of the FM have made sockpuppets after being banned, but those labeled as "cranks" have demonstratable and admittedly made FAR FAR more sockpuppets, often using two or more at the same time, and often being caught doing so.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
A poser is clearly someone whom claims to be, something he is not.
Exactly. This would -by definition- include StevenA, deadbeat, ubavontuba, Farsight, Zarkov, ArchAngel, Precursor and several others, both current and past, all of whom have claimed to be scientists, mathematicians, or to have scientific or mathematical knowledge which they have yet to demonstrate.
Exactly. This would -by definition- include StevenA, deadbeat, ubavontuba, Farsight, Zarkov, ArchAngel, Precursor and several others, both current and past, all of whom have claimed to be scientists, mathematicians, or to have scientific or mathematical knowledge which they have yet to demonstrate.
Then there are legal matters that exist. It's one thing to post a neg feedback that is constructive while it is another to simply harass something with insults and other means of derogatory like rude pics. Not only is it not called for but it is also illegal. It is illegal to harass another person. One quick email and the ghosts that provide this site wouldn't be invisible for long...
The feedback does not matter, as it is only opinions‘.
Onboard harassment is another. What the problem is, I think is that this board seems to be automated.
So the only way you can control harassment, is to use the report this post feature, with each post.
From what’s been leaked out on this board, we only have, it seems five years left, if the info is correct.
So certain demeanors, such as a once collective hierarchy, where what is perceived as collectivism, is changing.
Harassment is only an expression, that certain issues are here to change.
Onboard harassment is another. What the problem is, I think is that this board seems to be automated.
So the only way you can control harassment, is to use the report this post feature, with each post.
From what’s been leaked out on this board, we only have, it seems five years left, if the info is correct.
So certain demeanors, such as a once collective hierarchy, where what is perceived as collectivism, is changing.
Harassment is only an expression, that certain issues are here to change.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Mar 31 2008, 04:19 PM)
Then there are legal matters that exist. It's one thing to post a neg feedback that is constructive while it is another to simply harass something with insults and other means of derogatory like rude pics. Not only is it not called for but it is also illegal.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Well, we know you're not a lawyer.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Well, we know you're not a lawyer.
QUOTE (StevenA+)
You forgot Empress Palpatine...
Empress Palpatine isn't a sockpuppet of Alpha. See her posts in this thread.
Care to prove that? Oh, wait.
You can't.
Care to prove that? Oh, wait.
You can't.
It becomes obvious that you're just making fake accounts (for example, your join date is 3/6/08 and Cecil P Abstract, that you mention, stopped posting after February so you just switched toons again).
No, it's not obvious because I'm not Alpha. And despite all your claims that Alpha has half a dozen sockpuppets on the board, you've never managed to prove your claims.
Not even once.
A complete and blatant lie. Just the other day I helped a newbie here. A few days later I helped another one here. So don't go around saying my posts are "fluff". First of all, it's a lie, and second of all, even if it were true, you'd still be a hypocrite.
YES
I have caused this to happen on one site,
(they had to remove all defamatory material from their site forum, ALL) and I could have really put it up them, both the site for "publishing" derogatory unsubstantiated slander and the POSTERS for posting such defamatory material.
The law is catching up, and I am just warning y'all.
Stalking, slander and other such ad hominen attacks are occurring too often on the net AND people are starting to crack down on serial offenders.
Just a warning.... a serious warning !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Empress Palpatine isn't a sockpuppet of Alpha. See her posts in this thread.
QUOTE
(Yes, and you were one of them)
Care to prove that? Oh, wait.
You can't.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (Yes, and you were one of them) |
Care to prove that? Oh, wait.
You can't.
It becomes obvious that you're just making fake accounts (for example, your join date is 3/6/08 and Cecil P Abstract, that you mention, stopped posting after February so you just switched toons again).
No, it's not obvious because I'm not Alpha. And despite all your claims that Alpha has half a dozen sockpuppets on the board, you've never managed to prove your claims.
Not even once.
QUOTE
The content of your posts is similarly fluff and this is just your ~6th incarnation.
A complete and blatant lie. Just the other day I helped a newbie here. A few days later I helped another one here. So don't go around saying my posts are "fluff". First of all, it's a lie, and second of all, even if it were true, you'd still be a hypocrite.
Derek Thinking of it, you are so right.
We're just a tiny flyspeck somewhere in that black emptyness.
When I think of it Nothing really matters :)
So how about you letting your boss know that you're going for that extended holiday you so richly deserve starting immediately.
and if he shows the gall to obstruct your plans just inform him what you informed me :)
We're just a tiny flyspeck somewhere in that black emptyness.
When I think of it Nothing really matters :)
So how about you letting your boss know that you're going for that extended holiday you so richly deserve starting immediately.
and if he shows the gall to obstruct your plans just inform him what you informed me :)
Hi yor_on,
One sure way to get rid of these guys - talk about physics.
regards
edward 3
One sure way to get rid of these guys - talk about physics.
regards
edward 3
QUOTE
Not only is it not called for but it is also illegal. It is illegal to harass another person. One quick email and the ghosts that provide this site wouldn't be invisible for long...
YES
I have caused this to happen on one site,
(they had to remove all defamatory material from their site forum, ALL) and I could have really put it up them, both the site for "publishing" derogatory unsubstantiated slander and the POSTERS for posting such defamatory material.
The law is catching up, and I am just warning y'all.
Stalking, slander and other such ad hominen attacks are occurring too often on the net AND people are starting to crack down on serial offenders.
Just a warning.... a serious warning !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
(they had to remove all defamatory material from their site forum, ALL) and I could have really put it up them, both the site for "publishing" derogatory unsubstantiated slander and the POSTERS for posting such defamatory material.
Except it's not slander, nor is it libel. EVERY SINGLE THING we've said about you has been proven to be true. That might make it an ad hominem attack, but it's still not slander.
First of all, you're a hypocrite. You accused me of stalking but failed to provide any proof, despite being prodded several times to do so. And then here, just yesterday, you deliberately sought out not just to attack my post, but also to make another unfounded accusation. Hypocrisy much?
Second of all, what we say about you isn't slander. We've called you deluded, egocentric and a liar, and so far nothing you've done or posted has proved otherwise. It might be an ad hom attack, sure. But it still isn't slander.
Except it's not slander, nor is it libel. EVERY SINGLE THING we've said about you has been proven to be true. That might make it an ad hominem attack, but it's still not slander.
QUOTE
Stalking, slander and other such ad hominen attacks are occurring too often on the net
First of all, you're a hypocrite. You accused me of stalking but failed to provide any proof, despite being prodded several times to do so. And then here, just yesterday, you deliberately sought out not just to attack my post, but also to make another unfounded accusation. Hypocrisy much?
Second of all, what we say about you isn't slander. We've called you deluded, egocentric and a liar, and so far nothing you've done or posted has proved otherwise. It might be an ad hom attack, sure. But it still isn't slander.
This fool starts to sound like someone else, with (it)'s devolution into misinterpretation of law and stalking, but he said "y'all".
Do you suppose?
Nah.
Would the real Dr. Hans Zarkov please sit down, and go away?
Do you suppose?
Nah.
Would the real Dr. Hans Zarkov please sit down, and go away?
I think a lot of what we're seeing can be summed up as
'Suck up and kick down'
In the real world it can be subtle (and effective) - in plain text it is anything but subtle and I really can't judge the effectiveness - only the method.
'Suck up and kick down'
In the real world it can be subtle (and effective) - in plain text it is anything but subtle and I really can't judge the effectiveness - only the method.
QUOTE (Confused2+Mar 31 2008, 11:07 PM)
I think a lot of what we're seeing can be summed up as
'Suck up and kick down'
In the real world it can be subtle (and effective) - in plain text it is anything but subtle and I really can't judge the effectiveness - only the method.
Just act like a man. Plus the fact who gives a damn what others think of him?
'Suck up and kick down'
In the real world it can be subtle (and effective) - in plain text it is anything but subtle and I really can't judge the effectiveness - only the method.
Just act like a man. Plus the fact who gives a damn what others think of him?
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Mar 31 2008, 03:58 PM)
That's beyond ridiculous. The only "evidence" you have is join dates, which basically means nothing. But because it makes you feel better to assume there';s only one person with a half dozen names calling you an idiot, you cling to this assumption like there's no tomorrow. Unfortunately, the FM seems to be one username per person.
It's the type of comments too. As I said, "TheDoc" here mentioned Cecil, who left a month before TheDoc showed up (The was another clone or two in between also). It was obvious from some of the typical comments that TheDoc was another clone and sure enough it turned out true.
It doesn't take a long time to recognize which is the "new" Alpha (I've gotten ~80% accurate at figuring out what's the next bogus account).
It doesn't take long to verify this either as you quickly find the typical feedback pattern of spamming and you can go down the list and match them up almost 1 for 1.
It's the type of comments too. As I said, "TheDoc" here mentioned Cecil, who left a month before TheDoc showed up (The was another clone or two in between also). It was obvious from some of the typical comments that TheDoc was another clone and sure enough it turned out true.
It doesn't take a long time to recognize which is the "new" Alpha (I've gotten ~80% accurate at figuring out what's the next bogus account).
It doesn't take long to verify this either as you quickly find the typical feedback pattern of spamming and you can go down the list and match them up almost 1 for 1.
QUOTE (BigDumbWierdo+)
Admittedly, a few of the FM have made sockpuppets after being banned, but those labeled as "cranks" have demonstratable and admittedly made FAR FAR more sockpuppets, often using two or more at the same time, and often being caught doing so.
I haven't seen much of any of this in return (but then again, the "cranks" you refer to don't spam me, so I would likely not notice it).
I'd enjoy seeing what the ratings would look like without the redundant Alpha votes.
I haven't seen much of any of this in return (but then again, the "cranks" you refer to don't spam me, so I would likely not notice it).
I'd enjoy seeing what the ratings would look like without the redundant Alpha votes
.
QUOTE (StevenA+Mar 31 2008, 10:22 PM)
As I said, "TheDoc" here mentioned Cecil, who left a month before TheDoc showed up (The was another clone or two in between also). It was obvious from some of the typical comments that TheDoc was another clone and sure enough it turned out true.
Even if that particular instance is true, you've yet to have proven it.
This site ABOUNDS with instances of crank sockpuppets admitting their identities. That counts as proof. Your "intuition" doesn't.
That's bullsh*t. You can't guage the accuracy of a subjective process, especially when you're lacking the one thing needed in order to guage it's effectiveness: proof.
That's bullsh*t. You can't guage the accuracy of a subjective process, especially when you're lacking the one thing needed in order to guage it's effectiveness: proof.
It doesn't take long to verify this either as you quickly find the typical feedback pattern of spamming and you can go down the list and match them up almost 1 for 1.
So you "verify" your subjective intuition by using... your subjective intuition... to compare the subjective posting style of two usernames? Yeah...
Ahhh, the final clue as to the veracity of your claims of the FM being one or two people... You do ALL of this sbjective intuiting without EVER being subject to any of the existant evidence to the contrary. That's gotta help your objectivity something fierce.
Ahhh, the final clue as to the veracity of your claims of the FM being one or two people... You do ALL of this sbjective intuiting without EVER being subject to any of the existant evidence to the contrary. That's gotta help your objectivity something fierce.
I'd enjoy seeing what the ratings would look like without the redundant Alpha votes.
I'd enjoy seeing how short the 0.9r thread would be without your ignorant StevenA maths.
Even if that particular instance is true, you've yet to have proven it.
This site ABOUNDS with instances of crank sockpuppets admitting their identities. That counts as proof. Your "intuition" doesn't.
QUOTE
It doesn't take a long time to recognize which is the "new" Alpha (I've gotten ~80% accurate at figuring out what's the next bogus account).
That's bullsh*t. You can't guage the accuracy of a subjective process, especially when you're lacking the one thing needed in order to guage it's effectiveness: proof.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It doesn't take a long time to recognize which is the "new" Alpha (I've gotten ~80% accurate at figuring out what's the next bogus account). |
That's bullsh*t. You can't guage the accuracy of a subjective process, especially when you're lacking the one thing needed in order to guage it's effectiveness: proof.
It doesn't take long to verify this either as you quickly find the typical feedback pattern of spamming and you can go down the list and match them up almost 1 for 1.
So you "verify" your subjective intuition by using... your subjective intuition... to compare the subjective posting style of two usernames? Yeah...
QUOTE
I haven't seen much of any of this in return (but then again, the "cranks" you refer to don't spam me, so I would likely not notice it).
Ahhh, the final clue as to the veracity of your claims of the FM being one or two people... You do ALL of this sbjective intuiting without EVER being subject to any of the existant evidence to the contrary. That's gotta help your objectivity something fierce.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I haven't seen much of any of this in return (but then again, the "cranks" you refer to don't spam me, so I would likely not notice it). |
Ahhh, the final clue as to the veracity of your claims of the FM being one or two people... You do ALL of this sbjective intuiting without EVER being subject to any of the existant evidence to the contrary. That's gotta help your objectivity something fierce.
I'd enjoy seeing what the ratings would look like without the redundant Alpha votes
.I'd enjoy seeing how short the 0.9r thread would be without your ignorant StevenA maths.
QUOTE (StevenA+)
As I said, "TheDoc" here mentioned Cecil, who left a month before TheDoc showed up (The was another clone or two in between also).
That's because I went through Cecil's feedback. And sure enough, there was a negative from you accusing Cecil P Abstract of being Alpha. Same with Dallas, same with Trout, same with Crankoid.
No, it didn't turn out true because you never proved it. You didn't manage prove that Trout was a reincarnation of Alpha either. Why? Because your only "proof", if it can be called that, were your gut feelings. Well, guess what, Steven? Gut feelings don't count as proof.
No, it didn't turn out true because you never proved it. You didn't manage prove that Trout was a reincarnation of Alpha either. Why? Because your only "proof", if it can be called that, were your gut feelings. Well, guess what, Steven? Gut feelings don't count as proof.
It doesn't take a long time to recognize which is the "new" Alpha (I've gotten ~80% accurate at figuring out what's the next bogus account).
That's funny, because 80% of all your predictions were off by miles.
You seem to think that since more than two people are giving you negatives, they must be sockpuppets of one person of another. Little do you know that there are more than two people in the Forum Mafia.
You seem to think that since more than two people are giving you negatives, they must be sockpuppets of one person of another. Little do you know that there are more than two people in the Forum Mafia.
I haven't seen much of any of this in return.
How about tsolkas, aka F11711? Or Zephir, aka Ragtime? Or Nick, aka BURT SP? "Haven't seen much of any of this" my rear end. Lots of cranks returned with sockpuppets and you know it.
That's because I went through Cecil's feedback. And sure enough, there was a negative from you accusing Cecil P Abstract of being Alpha. Same with Dallas, same with Trout, same with Crankoid.
QUOTE
It was obvious from some of the typical comments that TheDoc was another clone and sure enough it turned out true.
No, it didn't turn out true because you never proved it. You didn't manage prove that Trout was a reincarnation of Alpha either. Why? Because your only "proof", if it can be called that, were your gut feelings. Well, guess what, Steven? Gut feelings don't count as proof.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It was obvious from some of the typical comments that TheDoc was another clone and sure enough it turned out true. |
No, it didn't turn out true because you never proved it. You didn't manage prove that Trout was a reincarnation of Alpha either. Why? Because your only "proof", if it can be called that, were your gut feelings. Well, guess what, Steven? Gut feelings don't count as proof.
It doesn't take a long time to recognize which is the "new" Alpha (I've gotten ~80% accurate at figuring out what's the next bogus account).
That's funny, because 80% of all your predictions were off by miles.
QUOTE
It doesn't take long to verify this either as you quickly find the typical feedback pattern of spamming and you can go down the list and match them up almost 1 for 1.
You seem to think that since more than two people are giving you negatives, they must be sockpuppets of one person of another. Little do you know that there are more than two people in the Forum Mafia.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It doesn't take long to verify this either as you quickly find the typical feedback pattern of spamming and you can go down the list and match them up almost 1 for 1. |
You seem to think that since more than two people are giving you negatives, they must be sockpuppets of one person of another. Little do you know that there are more than two people in the Forum Mafia.
I haven't seen much of any of this in return.
How about tsolkas, aka F11711? Or Zephir, aka Ragtime? Or Nick, aka BURT SP? "Haven't seen much of any of this" my rear end. Lots of cranks returned with sockpuppets and you know it.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 31 2008, 03:40 PM)
YES
I have caused this to happen on one site,
(they had to remove all defamatory material from their site forum, ALL) and I could have really put it up them, both the site for "publishing" derogatory unsubstantiated slander and the POSTERS for posting such defamatory material.
The law is catching up, and I am just warning y'all.
Stalking, slander and other such ad hominen attacks are occurring too often on the net AND people are starting to crack down on serial offenders.
Just a warning.... a serious warning !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
First off, I'm pretty certain that this lil anecdote is a lie.
Second, in order for some statement to be libel, it must be proven in a court of law that:
1: it is untrue.
2: It is damaging in a legally recognized form (financially, physically, emotionally).
3: It was made with the malicious intent to cause said damage.
You can not demonstrate ANY of those statements apply to anything said about you here, nor can anyone else on this site. This is NOT a forum in which scientific work is done, and the members of this forum are NOT exclusively scientists, amongst whom your reputation might suffer as a result of anything said about you, and you yourself are NOT a professional scientist, making a career out of your theories.
I have caused this to happen on one site,
(they had to remove all defamatory material from their site forum, ALL) and I could have really put it up them, both the site for "publishing" derogatory unsubstantiated slander and the POSTERS for posting such defamatory material.
The law is catching up, and I am just warning y'all.
Stalking, slander and other such ad hominen attacks are occurring too often on the net AND people are starting to crack down on serial offenders.
Just a warning.... a serious warning !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
First off, I'm pretty certain that this lil anecdote is a lie.
Second, in order for some statement to be libel, it must be proven in a court of law that:
1: it is untrue.
2: It is damaging in a legally recognized form (financially, physically, emotionally).
3: It was made with the malicious intent to cause said damage.
You can not demonstrate ANY of those statements apply to anything said about you here, nor can anyone else on this site. This is NOT a forum in which scientific work is done, and the members of this forum are NOT exclusively scientists, amongst whom your reputation might suffer as a result of anything said about you, and you yourself are NOT a professional scientist, making a career out of your theories.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 1 2008, 03:37 AM)
Even if that particular instance is true, you've yet to have proven it.
This site ABOUNDS with instances of crank sockpuppets admitting their identities. That counts as proof. Your "intuition" doesn't.
Dude, it's not a guess or anything. It's a persistant problem here and half the people on this forum are complaining about it also. Once or twice can be a coincidence but this just repeats and becomes predictable. I admit I can't tell every time from the first post I see from a new member whether or not it's the new clone, but it only generally takes reading a few posts and the targets to achieve a high confidence that it's close to time for the spams to kick in, though oftentimes it starts before you're even aware the person exists (I don't follow this site as much as I used to because many of the good posters have been harrassed into leaving).
This site ABOUNDS with instances of crank sockpuppets admitting their identities. That counts as proof. Your "intuition" doesn't.
Dude, it's not a guess or anything. It's a persistant problem here and half the people on this forum are complaining about it also. Once or twice can be a coincidence but this just repeats and becomes predictable. I admit I can't tell every time from the first post I see from a new member whether or not it's the new clone, but it only generally takes reading a few posts and the targets to achieve a high confidence that it's close to time for the spams to kick in, though oftentimes it starts before you're even aware the person exists (I don't follow this site as much as I used to because many of the good posters have been harrassed into leaving).
QUOTE (StevenA+Mar 31 2008, 11:54 PM)
Dude, it's not a guess or anything.
I'm sure some of the noblest theories of all time* have been defended with that statement.
*Excluding any theories which were not intially concieved while under the influence of marijuana, as well as all theories concieved while under the influence of marijuana whose presentation does not open with "Dude, this is soooo gonna blow your mind..."
I'm sure some of the noblest theories of all time* have been defended with that statement.
*Excluding any theories which were not intially concieved while under the influence of marijuana, as well as all theories concieved while under the influence of marijuana whose presentation does not open with "Dude, this is soooo gonna blow your mind..."
QUOTE (Confused2+Apr 1 2008, 01:46 AM)
Locally it seems to be (one of) the insults that are used instead of the rather more honest "I want you to go away because I don't like you.".
No, it's in addition to that
No, it's in addition to that
Well I don't know what to think of this board any more.
When I started here there was a lot of good guys and girls having fun.
The 'fighting' was done with humor and not behind peoples backs.
And the discussions was about what drove us together. Physics.
Nowadays we have the 'red army fractions' instead wanting to advise those of a 'lower standard of physics'.
They are so busy doing this that they have no time over to do what this board was created for once. Discuss physics that is.
Like sordid 'drama queens' they tell each other how good they are and what 'lamers' everyone else is.
This kind of material can sour anyones day.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...45&#entry327142
And the assholes telling each other how knowledgeable they really are?
Where are their contributions?
Except for sprouting BS...
sorry but no cigar.
When I started here there was a lot of good guys and girls having fun.
The 'fighting' was done with humor and not behind peoples backs.
And the discussions was about what drove us together. Physics.
Nowadays we have the 'red army fractions' instead wanting to advise those of a 'lower standard of physics'.
They are so busy doing this that they have no time over to do what this board was created for once. Discuss physics that is.
Like sordid 'drama queens' they tell each other how good they are and what 'lamers' everyone else is.
This kind of material can sour anyones day.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...45&#entry327142
And the assholes telling each other how knowledgeable they really are?
Where are their contributions?
Except for sprouting BS...
sorry but no cigar.
Hi yor_on,
You have articulated what I have been thinking. If it were not for a few guys like Alphanumeric and GoodElf, who know what they are talking about and genuinely seem to want to help amateurs, I would be out of here. I have a fair idea who you are talking about here and you can be certain that - 1. they have little or no knowledge of physics, 2. they have no interest in learning any physics 3. they have never posted a useful scientific idea, be it established fact, theory or speculation. In fact these people do far more damage to science than the creationists and all the other anti-science fundamentalists - makes one wonder what their real agenda might be !!!!!!!
Henceforth, I am going to confine myself solely to threads covering topics of genuine scientific interest - though there are few enough of these - and if the neggers invade these threads I will ignore them.
Keep the good posts coming.
best regards
edward
You have articulated what I have been thinking. If it were not for a few guys like Alphanumeric and GoodElf, who know what they are talking about and genuinely seem to want to help amateurs, I would be out of here. I have a fair idea who you are talking about here and you can be certain that - 1. they have little or no knowledge of physics, 2. they have no interest in learning any physics 3. they have never posted a useful scientific idea, be it established fact, theory or speculation. In fact these people do far more damage to science than the creationists and all the other anti-science fundamentalists - makes one wonder what their real agenda might be !!!!!!!
Henceforth, I am going to confine myself solely to threads covering topics of genuine scientific interest - though there are few enough of these - and if the neggers invade these threads I will ignore them.
Keep the good posts coming.
best regards
edward
QUOTE (Edward 3+Apr 1 2008, 08:37 AM)
If it were not for a few guys like Alphanumeric and GoodElf, who know what they are talking about...
I've only read a few of GoodElf's posts, but from what I saw it seems he is a perfect example of a `poser'. I'm sure I've seen him mentioning things like Hilbert spaces, but then it transpires that he doesn't know enough mathematics to integrate by parts. The former subject is 2nd/3rd year undergraduate material, the latter is taught routinely in highschools.
A few posers I can think of: StevenA, Raphie Frank, Precursor562, Farsight, NeoNo.1... each of which like to surf wiki, jump on subjects they don't have the first clue about and attempt to make out they're well versed in the given area. Gratuitous use of words like topology and chaos are usually good indicators! I can't think of any reason why they'd want to do this, other than they're just not all that bright.
I've only read a few of GoodElf's posts, but from what I saw it seems he is a perfect example of a `poser'. I'm sure I've seen him mentioning things like Hilbert spaces, but then it transpires that he doesn't know enough mathematics to integrate by parts. The former subject is 2nd/3rd year undergraduate material, the latter is taught routinely in highschools.
A few posers I can think of: StevenA, Raphie Frank, Precursor562, Farsight, NeoNo.1... each of which like to surf wiki, jump on subjects they don't have the first clue about and attempt to make out they're well versed in the given area. Gratuitous use of words like topology and chaos are usually good indicators! I can't think of any reason why they'd want to do this, other than they're just not all that bright.
Hi Euler,
I am just an amateur with a general interest in all areas of science and in particular physics. I am never likely to be anything more than this - 56 years of age is a bit late to start a physics career.
I have found GoodElf to be most helpful - particularly in providing useful references - and he does so with patience at our often ineptly phrased questions and without seeming to feel the need to be abusive. Beyond that I am not qualified to comment.
As for the remainder of your post, I concur!!
regards
edward
I am just an amateur with a general interest in all areas of science and in particular physics. I am never likely to be anything more than this - 56 years of age is a bit late to start a physics career.
I have found GoodElf to be most helpful - particularly in providing useful references - and he does so with patience at our often ineptly phrased questions and without seeming to feel the need to be abusive. Beyond that I am not qualified to comment.
As for the remainder of your post, I concur!!
regards
edward
QUOTE (Edward 3+Apr 1 2008, 09:00 AM)
I am never likely to be anything more than this - 56 years of age is a bit late to start a physics career.
Never say never: a very comprehensive book that gives more than a watered down view of things is Penrose's: The Road to Reality. Starts from the very basics and is accessible (initially) to almost anybody!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Well, we know you're not a lawyer.
Nice foot in mouth.
http://wiredsafety.org/cyberstalking_haras...talkinglaw.html
Note that it is a United Kingdom policy since this is a United Kingdom forum.
And to clarify on what harassment is.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/harassed
Thus according to the act those that are guilty can be fined and/or imprisoned. However as each country has different policies, a person guilty can be punished in accordance with the laws of their country. However it is the responsibility of the people who run a forum to govern the forum for such activity and to put a stop to it.
Nice foot in mouth.
http://wiredsafety.org/cyberstalking_haras...talkinglaw.html
Note that it is a United Kingdom policy since this is a United Kingdom forum.
And to clarify on what harassment is.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/harassed
Thus according to the act those that are guilty can be fined and/or imprisoned. However as each country has different policies, a person guilty can be punished in accordance with the laws of their country. However it is the responsibility of the people who run a forum to govern the forum for such activity and to put a stop to it.
Nice foot in mouth.
Note that it is a United Kingdom policy since this is a United Kingdom forum.
And to clarify on what harassment is.
Thus according to the act those that are guilty can be fined and/or imprisoned. However as each country has different policies, a person guilty can be punished in accordance with the laws of their country. However it is the responsibility of the people who run a forum to govern the forum for such activity and to put a stop to it.
Nice foot in mouth? So when exactly has physorg been shut down due to harrasment issues? When has any member been arrested on charges of harrasment stemming from his or her conduct on this forum? Well? After all, it just takes "one quick email" to get the ball rolling..... You're spinning your wheels, dude, and just digging yoruself in deeper!
Yanno, that link you provided is real nice. It specifically says that conduct isn't harrasment if it's "reasonable," and I'm pretty dang sure that it's perfectly reasonable to call someone an idiot when they think they can prove 300 years of mathematicians wrong with a few lines of text posted to the net. But that's just me.
Ooops, apparently, it's not just me. It's judges and lawyers, too.
So does what goes on round here even qualify as harrassment?
According to your link, it must be either grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing, a threat or false information. Calling people idiots isn't grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing, a threat, or even wrong in most cases!
Your link also says that you gotta keep doing it. More than one occasion.
So basically, to be guilty of that, someone would have sink to the level of insults that I haven't seen hurled around here. You know, like "You'd probably know more physics if you didn't have those horribly huge genital warts." or "Jesus Christ was a male crackwhore and all you christians can slobber on my nobber!" and then keep it up. Then, the guilty person would have to either be a citizen in the UK, or be extradited by his home country for trial.
What do you think the odds are that the USA would extradite one of it's citizens to england to be put on trial for harrassment?
So how's that foot taste, dumbass?
Never said it has, just saying it could.
Never said it has, just saying it could.
When has any member been arrested on charges of harrasment stemming from his or her conduct on this forum?
When has anyone on here actually taken the harassment to the proper authorities? The forum moderators (who should take the responsibility to deal with it) are not proper authorities.
It's a sex pistols video. It's not referenceable material in the least.
It's a sex pistols video. It's not referenceable material in the least.
I'm pretty dang sure that it's perfectly reasonable to call someone an idiot
The problem isn't the individual insult. The harassment is when the insults are given repeatedly from the same giver to the same receiver. If you had bothered to follow the link I proved to the definition of the term you would know that.
Calling someone an idiot, retarded and the like offensive, indecent (since this just doesn't refer to exposure), obscene and the fact that the insults are repeatedly given (would be given more if not for the limit to one feedback per week) make them menacing.
Calling someone an idiot, retarded and the like offensive, indecent (since this just doesn't refer to exposure), obscene and the fact that the insults are repeatedly given (would be given more if not for the limit to one feedback per week) make them menacing.
What do you think the odds are that the USA would extradite one of it's citizens to england to be put on trial for harrassment?
The person wouldn't be extradited. They would be punished in accordance to American law.
Never say never: a very comprehensive book that gives more than a watered down view of things is Penrose's: The Road to Reality. Starts from the very basics and is accessible (initially) to almost anybody!
QUOTE (Edward 3+Apr 1 2008, 09:00 AM)
I have found GoodElf to be most helpful - particularly in providing useful references
Well I would take his posts with a pinch of salt. I've just checked his profile, and he says his interests include general relativity. If the fact that he doesn't know how to integrate is indicative of his level of knowledge, then he won't understand the first thing about GR beyond watered down explanations given in pop-science books.
It's like listing one of your interests as: 17th century French literature, and later asking in a thread what the French word is for "yes".
There's absolutely nothing wrong in being ignorant of an area of physics - but making out you know more about a subject than you do is not on!
Well I would take his posts with a pinch of salt. I've just checked his profile, and he says his interests include general relativity. If the fact that he doesn't know how to integrate is indicative of his level of knowledge, then he won't understand the first thing about GR beyond watered down explanations given in pop-science books.
It's like listing one of your interests as: 17th century French literature, and later asking in a thread what the French word is for "yes".
There's absolutely nothing wrong in being ignorant of an area of physics - but making out you know more about a subject than you do is not on!
Hi Euler,
Thanks for that reference.
regards
edward
Thanks for that reference.
regards
edward
Euler as far as the math goes I don't know.
That one I leave to GoodElf to answer.
As for his genuine interest in physics and his capacity of thinking I find him extremly interesting.
As you say he uses Wikis a lot and also gives references to them, but i happen to find that a good thing when I want to check up on something fast.
And no, I don't buy anyones Ideas of physics wholesale, not mine own either.
But without Ideas to discuss this forum would soon dry up.
As seems to be the cause actually, if you look around.
So if there is 'cranks' with a extensive footing (even if self learned) in physics I will listen to them too.
It's better than kissing a*
That one I leave to GoodElf to answer.
As for his genuine interest in physics and his capacity of thinking I find him extremly interesting.
As you say he uses Wikis a lot and also gives references to them, but i happen to find that a good thing when I want to check up on something fast.
And no, I don't buy anyones Ideas of physics wholesale, not mine own either.
But without Ideas to discuss this forum would soon dry up.
As seems to be the cause actually, if you look around.
So if there is 'cranks' with a extensive footing (even if self learned) in physics I will listen to them too.
It's better than kissing a*
QUOTE
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Well, we know you're not a lawyer.
Nice foot in mouth. http://wiredsafety.org/cyberstalking_haras...talkinglaw.html
Note that it is a United Kingdom policy since this is a United Kingdom forum.
And to clarify on what harassment is.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/harassed
Thus according to the act those that are guilty can be fined and/or imprisoned. However as each country has different policies, a person guilty can be punished in accordance with the laws of their country. However it is the responsibility of the people who run a forum to govern the forum for such activity and to put a stop to it.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Apr 1 2008, 12:59 PM)
Nice foot in mouth. http://wiredsafety.org/cyberstalking_haras...talkinglaw.html
Note that it is a United Kingdom policy since this is a United Kingdom forum.
And to clarify on what harassment is.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/harassed
Thus according to the act those that are guilty can be fined and/or imprisoned. However as each country has different policies, a person guilty can be punished in accordance with the laws of their country. However it is the responsibility of the people who run a forum to govern the forum for such activity and to put a stop to it.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Apr 1 2008, 12:59 PM)
Nice foot in mouth. Note that it is a United Kingdom policy since this is a United Kingdom forum.
And to clarify on what harassment is.
Thus according to the act those that are guilty can be fined and/or imprisoned. However as each country has different policies, a person guilty can be punished in accordance with the laws of their country. However it is the responsibility of the people who run a forum to govern the forum for such activity and to put a stop to it.
Nice foot in mouth? So when exactly has physorg been shut down due to harrasment issues? When has any member been arrested on charges of harrasment stemming from his or her conduct on this forum? Well? After all, it just takes "one quick email" to get the ball rolling..... You're spinning your wheels, dude, and just digging yoruself in deeper!
Yanno, that link you provided is real nice. It specifically says that conduct isn't harrasment if it's "reasonable," and I'm pretty dang sure that it's perfectly reasonable to call someone an idiot when they think they can prove 300 years of mathematicians wrong with a few lines of text posted to the net. But that's just me.
Ooops, apparently, it's not just me. It's judges and lawyers, too.
So does what goes on round here even qualify as harrassment?
According to your link, it must be either grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing, a threat or false information. Calling people idiots isn't grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing, a threat, or even wrong in most cases!
Your link also says that you gotta keep doing it. More than one occasion.
So basically, to be guilty of that, someone would have sink to the level of insults that I haven't seen hurled around here. You know, like "You'd probably know more physics if you didn't have those horribly huge genital warts." or "Jesus Christ was a male crackwhore and all you christians can slobber on my nobber!" and then keep it up. Then, the guilty person would have to either be a citizen in the UK, or be extradited by his home country for trial.
What do you think the odds are that the USA would extradite one of it's citizens to england to be put on trial for harrassment?
So how's that foot taste, dumbass?
QUOTE
So when exactly has physorg been shut down due to harrasment issues?
Never said it has, just saying it could.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So when exactly has physorg been shut down due to harrasment issues? |
Never said it has, just saying it could.
When has any member been arrested on charges of harrasment stemming from his or her conduct on this forum?
When has anyone on here actually taken the harassment to the proper authorities? The forum moderators (who should take the responsibility to deal with it) are not proper authorities.
QUOTE
"reasonable,"
It's a sex pistols video. It's not referenceable material in the least.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "reasonable," |
It's a sex pistols video. It's not referenceable material in the least.
I'm pretty dang sure that it's perfectly reasonable to call someone an idiot
The problem isn't the individual insult. The harassment is when the insults are given repeatedly from the same giver to the same receiver. If you had bothered to follow the link I proved to the definition of the term you would know that.
QUOTE
According to your link, it must be either grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing, a threat or false information.
Calling someone an idiot, retarded and the like offensive, indecent (since this just doesn't refer to exposure), obscene and the fact that the insults are repeatedly given (would be given more if not for the limit to one feedback per week) make them menacing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| According to your link, it must be either grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing, a threat or false information. |
Calling someone an idiot, retarded and the like offensive, indecent (since this just doesn't refer to exposure), obscene and the fact that the insults are repeatedly given (would be given more if not for the limit to one feedback per week) make them menacing.
What do you think the odds are that the USA would extradite one of it's citizens to england to be put on trial for harrassment?
The person wouldn't be extradited. They would be punished in accordance to American law.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Apr 1 2008, 04:19 PM)
Never said it has, just saying it could.
Then you're also sayign that either nobody's EVER called up their lawyer to see if they could sue another member here over harrassment, or that on those occasions in which that has happened, the lawyer said "You don't have a case."
One of those is pretty likely. The other isn't.
I dunno. When have they? All things considered, it's pretty damn likely somebody has.
I dunno. When have they? All things considered, it's pretty damn likely somebody has.
It's a sex pistols video. It's not referenceable material in the least.
I wasn't referring to G's link, numbnuts, I was referring to yours! That's why I said "that link you provided." Jesus H. Christ son, do you pay attention to what you're reading?
Good God but you've just answered my last question. Why the hell do you think I went on and on about what the link you gave said if I'd never even read it? Jesus, I'm not as dumb as you look, man.
Good God but you've just answered my last question. Why the hell do you think I went on and on about what the link you gave said if I'd never even read it? Jesus, I'm not as dumb as you look, man.
Calling someone an idiot, retarded and the like offensive, indecent (since this just doesn't refer to exposure), obscene
Well, that's all a matter of opinion. And as I pointed out already, judges and lawyers don't tend to agree with you on that one, numbnuts.
Huh? What's that phrase I'm looking for? oH YEAH, "Paranoid Delusional."
Huh? What's that phrase I'm looking for? oH YEAH, "Paranoid Delusional."
The person wouldn't be extradited. They would be punished in accordance to American law.
As I said before, you sure ain't no lawyer.
Exactly. The only action anyone on here has taken is complain to those that run these forums. Sometimes action is taken. The seriousness that is required and what is viewed as seriousness may be falsely perceived as being a matter of opinion but the determination of seriousness is not a matter of perception but rather it is well outlined.
Exactly. The only action anyone on here has taken is complain to those that run these forums. Sometimes action is taken. The seriousness that is required and what is viewed as seriousness may be falsely perceived as being a matter of opinion but the determination of seriousness is not a matter of perception but rather it is well outlined.
And as I pointed out already, judges and lawyers don't tend to agree with you on that one, numbnuts.
You'd be surprised at how small an insult has resulted in successful court cases.
Exactly. The only action anyone on here has taken is complain to those that run these forums. Sometimes action is taken. The seriousness that is required and what is viewed as seriousness may be falsely perceived as being a matter of opinion but the determination of seriousness is not a matter of perception but rather it is well outlined.
Hell, that's bull. I've seen at least three or four posts where people holler about calling their lawyers. I've never seen a single one of em come back with "expect to be served soon." You got even one reason to think they didn't actually call their lawyers, after all their threatening?
I think you'd be surprised how many court cases get tossed out cause they're not worth dealing with.
I'll tell you what. You go ahead and call up a lawyer and tell him I called you "numbnuts" twice, said you look dumb, and called you paranoid delusional. That's gotta be worse than most of the crap that goes on around here.
Let me know if he thinks you've got a case.
It's called an empty threat. Though I am curious, please link to these posts.
It's called an empty threat. Though I am curious, please link to these posts.
You first, numbnuts!
Then you're also sayign that either nobody's EVER called up their lawyer to see if they could sue another member here over harrassment, or that on those occasions in which that has happened, the lawyer said "You don't have a case."
One of those is pretty likely. The other isn't.
QUOTE
When has anyone on here actually taken the harassment to the proper authorities? The forum moderators (who should take the responsibility to deal with it) are not proper authorities.
I dunno. When have they? All things considered, it's pretty damn likely somebody has.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When has anyone on here actually taken the harassment to the proper authorities? The forum moderators (who should take the responsibility to deal with it) are not proper authorities. |
I dunno. When have they? All things considered, it's pretty damn likely somebody has.
It's a sex pistols video. It's not referenceable material in the least.
I wasn't referring to G's link, numbnuts, I was referring to yours! That's why I said "that link you provided." Jesus H. Christ son, do you pay attention to what you're reading?
QUOTE
The problem isn't the individual insult. The harassment is when the insults are given repeatedly from the same giver to the same receiver. If you had bothered to follow the link I proved to the definition of the term you would know that.
Good God but you've just answered my last question. Why the hell do you think I went on and on about what the link you gave said if I'd never even read it? Jesus, I'm not as dumb as you look, man.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The problem isn't the individual insult. The harassment is when the insults are given repeatedly from the same giver to the same receiver. If you had bothered to follow the link I proved to the definition of the term you would know that. |
Good God but you've just answered my last question. Why the hell do you think I went on and on about what the link you gave said if I'd never even read it? Jesus, I'm not as dumb as you look, man.
Calling someone an idiot, retarded and the like offensive, indecent (since this just doesn't refer to exposure), obscene
Well, that's all a matter of opinion. And as I pointed out already, judges and lawyers don't tend to agree with you on that one, numbnuts.
QUOTE
and the fact that the insults are repeatedly given (would be given more if not for the limit to one feedback per week) make them menacing.
Huh? What's that phrase I'm looking for? oH YEAH, "Paranoid Delusional."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and the fact that the insults are repeatedly given (would be given more if not for the limit to one feedback per week) make them menacing. |
Huh? What's that phrase I'm looking for? oH YEAH, "Paranoid Delusional."
The person wouldn't be extradited. They would be punished in accordance to American law.
As I said before, you sure ain't no lawyer.
QUOTE
Then you're also sayign that either nobody's EVER called up their lawyer
Exactly. The only action anyone on here has taken is complain to those that run these forums. Sometimes action is taken. The seriousness that is required and what is viewed as seriousness may be falsely perceived as being a matter of opinion but the determination of seriousness is not a matter of perception but rather it is well outlined.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then you're also sayign that either nobody's EVER called up their lawyer |
Exactly. The only action anyone on here has taken is complain to those that run these forums. Sometimes action is taken. The seriousness that is required and what is viewed as seriousness may be falsely perceived as being a matter of opinion but the determination of seriousness is not a matter of perception but rather it is well outlined.
And as I pointed out already, judges and lawyers don't tend to agree with you on that one, numbnuts.
You'd be surprised at how small an insult has resulted in successful court cases.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Apr 1 2008, 05:51 PM)
Exactly. The only action anyone on here has taken is complain to those that run these forums. Sometimes action is taken. The seriousness that is required and what is viewed as seriousness may be falsely perceived as being a matter of opinion but the determination of seriousness is not a matter of perception but rather it is well outlined.
Hell, that's bull. I've seen at least three or four posts where people holler about calling their lawyers. I've never seen a single one of em come back with "expect to be served soon." You got even one reason to think they didn't actually call their lawyers, after all their threatening?
QUOTE
You'd be surprised at how small an insult has resulted in successful court cases.
I think you'd be surprised how many court cases get tossed out cause they're not worth dealing with.
I'll tell you what. You go ahead and call up a lawyer and tell him I called you "numbnuts" twice, said you look dumb, and called you paranoid delusional. That's gotta be worse than most of the crap that goes on around here.
Let me know if he thinks you've got a case.
Strange, so many intelligent people.
Ruled by the ideas of those?
whatever...
Well
What else is new :)
Ruled by the ideas of those?
whatever...
Well
What else is new :)
QUOTE
Hell, that's bull. I've seen at least three or four posts where people holler about calling their lawyers.
It's called an empty threat. Though I am curious, please link to these posts.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Apr 1 2008, 06:33 PM)
It's called an empty threat. Though I am curious, please link to these posts.
QUOTE
I'll tell you what. You go ahead and call up a lawyer and tell him I called you "numbnuts" twice, said you look dumb, and called you paranoid delusional. That's gotta be worse than most of the crap that goes on around here.
Let me know if he thinks you've got a case.
Let me know if he thinks you've got a case.
You first, numbnuts!
I say the guys who help me out on math homework aren't posers. Although Euler mentions that basic calculus is often taught in high school, I find it unlikely that "posers" who had it in high school even remember any of it. I think you'd have to be involved with science or math education in some way to be able to help in the homework help section. Of course, I could be and often am wrong.
But anyway, I still think there are enough good, knowledgeable people here to keep me coming back. I don't know how many times someone here has saved my butt with help on integration, partial derivatives, and differential equations.
But the way I see it, the people who come in here with an attitude only end up looking like fools. How can you respect someone on a physics forum that has such low confidence that they have to parade around like they are better than everyone else? Especialy the people who don't prove it with with the math and such. Last I checked, the science and math community was much more about learning, helping the next generation out, and respectful competition than petty ego gratifying ad hominem.
But anyway, I still think there are enough good, knowledgeable people here to keep me coming back. I don't know how many times someone here has saved my butt with help on integration, partial derivatives, and differential equations.
But the way I see it, the people who come in here with an attitude only end up looking like fools. How can you respect someone on a physics forum that has such low confidence that they have to parade around like they are better than everyone else? Especialy the people who don't prove it with with the math and such. Last I checked, the science and math community was much more about learning, helping the next generation out, and respectful competition than petty ego gratifying ad hominem.
Nice one, Grasshopper. I have been guilty of attacks, too, but I try not to do it except for sport these days.
My attempts at help in the homework help section are often incomplete and mathless, but not malicious, and often result in someone who really knows how to help jumping in to save the OP from me!
My attempts at help in the homework help section are often incomplete and mathless, but not malicious, and often result in someone who really knows how to help jumping in to save the OP from me!
That's funny considering you just quoted yourself then replied to yourself.
You first, numbnuts!
I'm also still waiting for the posts that you said existed of people threatening to call their lawyers.
Only the necessary ways in which existence itself 'operates' can be termed 'right', as this is the Natural producer of all else.
Only the necessary ways in which existence itself 'operates' can be termed 'right', as this is the Natural producer of all else.
How can a smart opened minded individual be mislead?
Do tell!
g.
Its a trap basically. biggrin.gif
You are saying that people mislead themselves with their own traps?
g.
The problem is when a poser spreads false information, which might have a negative effect on others.
g.
Your life may depend on one of these posers one day, and you will lose.
Maybe, but his life certainly won't depend on yours.
LOOK IN A MIRROR YOU SCATTERBRAINED HYPOCRITE!
LOOK IN A MIRROR YOU SCATTERBRAINED HYPOCRITE!
Sadly, this twerp would need to evolve eyes - then another 800 million years to interpret the image.
QUOTE
I'll tell you what. You go ahead and call up a lawyer and tell him I called you "numbnuts" twice, said you look dumb, and called you paranoid delusional. That's gotta be worse than most of the crap that goes on around here.
Let me know if he thinks you've got a case.
Let me know if he thinks you've got a case.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'll tell you what. You go ahead and call up a lawyer and tell him I called you "numbnuts" twice, said you look dumb, and called you paranoid delusional. That's gotta be worse than most of the crap that goes on around here. Let me know if he thinks you've got a case. |
You first, numbnuts!
I'm also still waiting for the posts that you said existed of people threatening to call their lawyers.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Apr 2 2008, 06:45 AM)
That's funny considering you just quoted yourself then replied to yourself.
Good god...
He quoted himself to REPEAT his challenge, then added "you first, numbnuts."
How could you possibly not understand that? Yeesh.
Good god...
He quoted himself to REPEAT his challenge, then added "you first, numbnuts."
How could you possibly not understand that? Yeesh.
grasshopper, no one is saying that math doesn't belong to physics here.
What we are discussing is people trashing threads by name calling and lying.
As for what is cranks, I find those guys worse.
This site was extremly cool just one year ago. Since then it has fallen apart.
Mostly thanks to our 'vigilantes' desperate attempt to weed off what they deem as 'cranks'
Normally that kind of thing is done by the administrators, not by self appointed pompous ... that mostly, if you look at when they registered, discovered this site just recently.
And if you check their posts you will find very little consisting of physics content, if you don't count slander as that of course.
What we are discussing is people trashing threads by name calling and lying.
As for what is cranks, I find those guys worse.
This site was extremly cool just one year ago. Since then it has fallen apart.
Mostly thanks to our 'vigilantes' desperate attempt to weed off what they deem as 'cranks'
Normally that kind of thing is done by the administrators, not by self appointed pompous ... that mostly, if you look at when they registered, discovered this site just recently.
And if you check their posts you will find very little consisting of physics content, if you don't count slander as that of course.
So yoron, are you applying for the vacant position of janitor?
Ah NOM
The self proclaimed lightning bolt to the wicked.
No I'm not interested, you can keep it :)
The self proclaimed lightning bolt to the wicked.
No I'm not interested, you can keep it :)
QUOTE (yor_on+Apr 2 2008, 02:39 PM)
grasshopper, no one is saying that math doesn't belong to physics here.
What we are discussing is people trashing threads by name calling and lying.
As for what is cranks, I find those guys worse.
Ah. I thought we were discussing people who pretend to knowledge they don't have. But if we're talking about just egomaniacs, then I'd have to agree that they should just go elsewhere to gratify their need to feel superior, or perhaps they should give up physics and go find Jesus.
What we are discussing is people trashing threads by name calling and lying.
As for what is cranks, I find those guys worse.
Ah. I thought we were discussing people who pretend to knowledge they don't have. But if we're talking about just egomaniacs, then I'd have to agree that they should just go elsewhere to gratify their need to feel superior, or perhaps they should give up physics and go find Jesus.
:)
There is one thing that stands out. The idea that people cannot think for themselves thus someone else has to show them the path. And if someone instructs people wrong damage has been done. How can a smart opened minded individual be mislead? It doesnt know whats right? How come? Isnt there only one way to be right?
QUOTE
Isnt there only one way to be right?
Only the necessary ways in which existence itself 'operates' can be termed 'right', as this is the Natural producer of all else.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Isnt there only one way to be right? |
Only the necessary ways in which existence itself 'operates' can be termed 'right', as this is the Natural producer of all else.
How can a smart opened minded individual be mislead?
Do tell!
g.
I strongly suspect Majkl of leaning towards sarcasm here..?
But leaning in which direction :)
Ah well.
The allure of a good laugh.
It has ::))
But leaning in which direction :)
Ah well.
The allure of a good laugh.
It has ::))
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Apr 3 2008, 10:47 AM)
Do tell!
g.
I thought the question points to its own cloudy context. Its a trap basically.
g.
I thought the question points to its own cloudy context. Its a trap basically.
QUOTE
How can a smart opened minded individual be mislead?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How can a smart opened minded individual be mislead? |
Its a trap basically. biggrin.gif
You are saying that people mislead themselves with their own traps?
g.
QUOTE (yor_on+Apr 3 2008, 11:00 AM)
I strongly suspect Majkl of leaning towards sarcasm here..?
But leaning in which direction
Ah well.
The allure of a good laugh.
It has :)
You bet.
Direction? Doubt. No-direction.
But, to adress the question of the thread. I leave an opened possibility that we are all posers. Everything in nature shows off. To make it more interesting. If you are not a poser then you must have a very self-destructive mind. The idea is that everything self promotes. And you cannot loose or compare if you dont do it right? But what is there to loose, when you are not worried about how perfect you are, for you know it. So not being a poser is an act of a beleif as well. Modesty for example is either purely circumstancial- neccesity or purely hypocricital- pose. And to make circle square we are all hypocritical as well. Shine of egoistic nature. I know i am not te be taken seriously. Thus i know myself.
But leaning in which direction
Ah well.
The allure of a good laugh.
It has :
) You bet.
Direction? Doubt. No-direction.
But, to adress the question of the thread. I leave an opened possibility that we are all posers. Everything in nature shows off. To make it more interesting. If you are not a poser then you must have a very self-destructive mind. The idea is that everything self promotes. And you cannot loose or compare if you dont do it right? But what is there to loose, when you are not worried about how perfect you are, for you know it. So not being a poser is an act of a beleif as well. Modesty for example is either purely circumstancial- neccesity or purely hypocricital- pose. And to make circle square we are all hypocritical as well. Shine of egoistic nature. I know i am not te be taken seriously. Thus i know myself.
Good point Majkl, but have you not considered that sometimes it is appropriate to have humility, and sometimes it is appropriate to "show off?" Like in Aristotle's ethics, it is correct to behave in the manner appropriate for your own standing. For example, I am an undergrad and I am NOT all that knowledgeable about physics. Because of this, I feel it is appropriate for me to behave as one who knows he does NOT know, but who is eager to learn.
Likewise, it is appropriate for a professional to feel compelled to teach people like me because it is what they are supposed to do, on the grounds that a.) because someone helped them they are compelled to continue that help to the next generation of physicists, and b.) it is right for them to get recognition for their hard fought knowledge.
Or, if you prefer in a more readable way: It is right for people who deserve to be recognized for their knowledge to be recognized, and it is right for people who do NOT have that knowledge to adopt a certain degree of humility.
However, one who is in fact superior has no need to gloat. He simply demonstrates his greatness in the manner that is appropriate. He is magnanimous. How is being magnanimous hypocritical?
Is that a bit too much Nicomachean Ethics for one post?
EDIT- did I post this because I am trying to get recognized for sweating through a semester of Aristotle's ethics? Or am I selflessly trying to help those of us in this discussion to find the "mean?" Is it both? Probably something in the middle... dare I say the mean?
Likewise, it is appropriate for a professional to feel compelled to teach people like me because it is what they are supposed to do, on the grounds that a.) because someone helped them they are compelled to continue that help to the next generation of physicists, and b.) it is right for them to get recognition for their hard fought knowledge.
Or, if you prefer in a more readable way: It is right for people who deserve to be recognized for their knowledge to be recognized, and it is right for people who do NOT have that knowledge to adopt a certain degree of humility.
However, one who is in fact superior has no need to gloat. He simply demonstrates his greatness in the manner that is appropriate. He is magnanimous. How is being magnanimous hypocritical?
Is that a bit too much Nicomachean Ethics for one post?
EDIT- did I post this because I am trying to get recognized for sweating through a semester of Aristotle's ethics? Or am I selflessly trying to help those of us in this discussion to find the "mean?" Is it both? Probably something in the middle... dare I say the mean?
Good one Grasshopper.
When I first arrived at this site your description would have fitted right in.
People were cool and those with good knowledge shared freely.
I kind of miss that :)
But that was then and this is now.
Nowadays it's more like either you're with 'us' or with 'them'.
And new people to this site who is the least fuzzy or have 'strange' ideas..
And those formerly 'magnanimous' characters?
If you want to read one just goggle on ' carbonlife physorg '
He uses very good language and gives respect to people while explaining.
Compare that guy to what you can read today.
But we still have some here. Some really good guys/gals.
And some that I just don't know what happened to them.
But I fear that they might not want to get into the 'limelight'
Stringent physics is really cool, but most of us who are here ain't that knowledgeable.
So should that mean that we should give out badges saying 'almost physicist' 'near one' 'crank' etc :)
And if so, would you like to stay ::))
When I first arrived at this site your description would have fitted right in.
People were cool and those with good knowledge shared freely.
I kind of miss that :)
But that was then and this is now.
Nowadays it's more like either you're with 'us' or with 'them'.
And new people to this site who is the least fuzzy or have 'strange' ideas..
And those formerly 'magnanimous' characters?
If you want to read one just goggle on ' carbonlife physorg '
He uses very good language and gives respect to people while explaining.
Compare that guy to what you can read today.
But we still have some here. Some really good guys/gals.
And some that I just don't know what happened to them.
But I fear that they might not want to get into the 'limelight'
Stringent physics is really cool, but most of us who are here ain't that knowledgeable.
So should that mean that we should give out badges saying 'almost physicist' 'near one' 'crank' etc :)
And if so, would you like to stay ::))
QUOTE (Grasshopper+Apr 4 2008, 03:45 AM)
Good point Majkl, but have you not considered that sometimes it is appropriate to have humility, and sometimes it is appropriate to "show off?"
If i paraphrase -appropriate in my own understanding. You are saying wearing masks and learning tactics right? Learn to reason correctly kind of thing. Thats the point.
Additionaly. Group of people says: that is good and correct. But since you are not so easily fooled you know there are many ways of good and correct. But if you actually beleive that good and correct and evil and incorrect are not indoctrinations you are being civilized. Thus you become a real hypocrite. What one is looking for is how will people try to justify such is not the truth without using a beleif system. Thus without: this is good and this is bad type apriori conditionals. It seems its not possible. You have to abandon one to accept the other. mutually exclusive and dangerous.
If i paraphrase -appropriate in my own understanding. You are saying wearing masks and learning tactics right? Learn to reason correctly kind of thing. Thats the point.
Additionaly. Group of people says: that is good and correct. But since you are not so easily fooled you know there are many ways of good and correct. But if you actually beleive that good and correct and evil and incorrect are not indoctrinations you are being civilized. Thus you become a real hypocrite. What one is looking for is how will people try to justify such is not the truth without using a beleif system. Thus without: this is good and this is bad type apriori conditionals. It seems its not possible. You have to abandon one to accept the other. mutually exclusive and dangerous.
Everybody poses in some way. Whether it’s to pick up a girl at a bar or to simply impress friends with embellished stories. On occasion it can even be a positive thing. To display confidence in the face of the enemy. Confidence that may not actually exist.
The problem is when a poser spreads false information, which might have a negative effect on others.
The problem is when a poser spreads false information, which might have a negative effect on others.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 4 2008, 01:46 PM)
The problem is when a poser spreads false information, which might have a negative effect on others.
Whats the negative effect? If one does not spread religion what is the negative effect for example? Or maybe - if one spreads religion what can be negative and positive effects? What is the selection criteria? Who or what dictates such logic?
Additionally for example- what are examples of rigorous logic in nature?
Whats the negative effect? If one does not spread religion what is the negative effect for example? Or maybe - if one spreads religion what can be negative and positive effects? What is the selection criteria? Who or what dictates such logic?
Additionally for example- what are examples of rigorous logic in nature?
How about one who poses as a doctor of medicine and dispenses medical advice? See any harm there?
I see the harm. But who counts the victims?
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 4 2008, 01:46 PM)
The problem is when a poser spreads false information, which might have a negative effect on others.
QUOTE
I’m trying to take this thread in a more philosophical direction rather than comedic. You know like the futility of life and stuff.
g.
QUOTE (Majkl+Apr 4 2008, 09:01 AM)
Whats the negative effect?
A student attempting to get some help with a complex idea in math could take a crank's ideas as accepted fact, and thus fail an exam, which could result in his or her disheartening and decision to drop out of college. That's not harmful?
A high school student could take an entrance exam using some crank's theories and fail, thus preventing him from ever getting the schooling he or she desired. That's not harmful?
Or worse yet, a gun enthusiast could plot a ballistic curve using some crank's theory of gravity and end up killing someone when they attempt to make a 2 mile shot with a sniper rifle and the bullet ends up two hundred yards from where he expected it to land. That's not harmful?
A student attempting to get some help with a complex idea in math could take a crank's ideas as accepted fact, and thus fail an exam, which could result in his or her disheartening and decision to drop out of college. That's not harmful?
A high school student could take an entrance exam using some crank's theories and fail, thus preventing him from ever getting the schooling he or she desired. That's not harmful?
Or worse yet, a gun enthusiast could plot a ballistic curve using some crank's theory of gravity and end up killing someone when they attempt to make a 2 mile shot with a sniper rifle and the bullet ends up two hundred yards from where he expected it to land. That's not harmful?
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 4 2008, 04:26 PM)
A student attempting to get some help with a complex idea in math could take a crank's ideas as accepted fact, and thus fail an exam, which could result in his or her disheartening and decision to drop out of college. That's not harmful?
A high school student could take an entrance exam using some crank's theories and fail, thus preventing him from ever getting the schooling he or she desired. That's not harmful?
Or worse yet, a gun enthusiast could plot a ballistic curve using some crank's theory of gravity and end up killing someone when they attempt to make a 2 mile shot with a sniper rifle and the bullet ends up two hundred yards from where he expected it to land. That's not harmful?
If you got a real passion and driven by actual experience on things there is no problem with theories. Theory said cold fusion is impossible. Experiment shows something else. Whatever it is, it is there. Why follow something that ignores anomalies for the sake of theory? I dont see the point there. Whats the schooling for if you have to actually learn particles theory which is not real and why go through all the trouble if all you need is actual hands on things? Did you learn to play guitar by reading about it?
As far as example with riffle goes - check the history and remember Hiroshima.
A high school student could take an entrance exam using some crank's theories and fail, thus preventing him from ever getting the schooling he or she desired. That's not harmful?
Or worse yet, a gun enthusiast could plot a ballistic curve using some crank's theory of gravity and end up killing someone when they attempt to make a 2 mile shot with a sniper rifle and the bullet ends up two hundred yards from where he expected it to land. That's not harmful?
If you got a real passion and driven by actual experience on things there is no problem with theories. Theory said cold fusion is impossible. Experiment shows something else. Whatever it is, it is there. Why follow something that ignores anomalies for the sake of theory? I dont see the point there. Whats the schooling for if you have to actually learn particles theory which is not real and why go through all the trouble if all you need is actual hands on things? Did you learn to play guitar by reading about it?
As far as example with riffle goes - check the history and remember Hiroshima.
QUOTE (Majkl+Apr 4 2008, 10:08 PM)
check the history and remember Hiroshima.
Wouldn’t the example of Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) demonstrate the importance of eliminating crank science from research? The Manhattan Project succeeded because of the genius of the researchers. Do you believe the U.S. Army or Oppenheimer would have tolerated crank scientists?
Wouldn’t the example of Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) demonstrate the importance of eliminating crank science from research? The Manhattan Project succeeded because of the genius of the researchers. Do you believe the U.S. Army or Oppenheimer would have tolerated crank scientists?
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
Your life may depend on one of these posers one day, and you will lose.
Maybe, but his life certainly won't depend on yours.
QUOTE
Get real lad, and think before your post,
LOOK IN A MIRROR YOU SCATTERBRAINED HYPOCRITE!
QUOTE (TheDoc+Apr 5 2008, 02:44 AM)
LOOK IN A MIRROR YOU SCATTERBRAINED HYPOCRITE!
Sadly, this twerp would need to evolve eyes - then another 800 million years to interpret the image.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 4 2008, 10:32 PM)
Do you believe the U.S. Army or Oppenheimer would have tolerated crank scientists?
If i paraphrase it hopefully correctly. Would these people tolerate anything that is different from what they know? Unfortunately i think they wouldnt.
As far as influence of "cranks" goes i dont really beleive that people cannot judge and decide for themselves. For example if you look at my feedback score and see negatives and who gave their negative opinion you can clearly decide to ignore anything i say and most of the time i get ignored and it poses no problem to me. Sometimes i see paradoxes much like anyone does and try to shed some light on it but usually it gets ignored and i didnt see nobody get influenced by it nor that it did any harm. Maybe somebody knows something and it is always interesting to read about anomalies and see how they dont fit our present knowledge which means there may be lots we dont know yet. And in the context of that, should we act so self-assured and self-confident while if being honest we dont know really how this reality works at all.
If i paraphrase it hopefully correctly. Would these people tolerate anything that is different from what they know? Unfortunately i think they wouldnt.
As far as influence of "cranks" goes i dont really beleive that people cannot judge and decide for themselves. For example if you look at my feedback score and see negatives and who gave their negative opinion you can clearly decide to ignore anything i say and most of the time i get ignored and it poses no problem to me. Sometimes i see paradoxes much like anyone does and try to shed some light on it but usually it gets ignored and i didnt see nobody get influenced by it nor that it did any harm. Maybe somebody knows something and it is always interesting to read about anomalies and see how they dont fit our present knowledge which means there may be lots we dont know yet. And in the context of that, should we act so self-assured and self-confident while if being honest we dont know really how this reality works at all.
Can't think of anything much more 'cranky' than detonating a nuclear weapon over the heads of whole cities of mostly innocent people!
g.
g.
QUOTE (Majkl+Apr 4 2008, 05:08 PM)
If you got a real passion and driven by actual experience on things there is no problem with theories. Theory said cold fusion is impossible. Experiment shows something else. Whatever it is, it is there. Why follow something that ignores anomalies for the sake of theory? I dont see the point there. Whats the schooling for if you have to actually learn particles theory which is not real and why go through all the trouble if all you need is actual hands on things? Did you learn to play guitar by reading about it?
As far as example with riffle goes - check the history and remember Hiroshima.
Majkl, I have no idea what your response was suppose to be. Every one of those situations I listed was distinctly possible. The questions I posed to you went unanswered, so now here I am, asking you to directly answer my direct questions.
ARE THOSE EXAMPLES HARMFUL OR NOT, AND WHY?
If you can respond reasonably we can continue to debate the subject. If you can't, then I don't know what you're even doing here.
Is that the best insult you can think of? "I know you are but what am I?" might have been wittier than that...
Is that the best insult you can think of? "I know you are but what am I?" might have been wittier than that...
That student SHOULD fail
Really?
So let me get this straight... You think a student should have enough knowledge of the subject he or she is studying to discern all false claims about that subject by the time they begin their education? That makes absolutely no sense. If people were even capable of that, there would be no need for education, and it's one of the dumbest things I can imagine anyone saying.
So let me get this straight... You think a student should have enough knowledge of the subject he or she is studying to discern all false claims about that subject by the time they begin their education? That makes absolutely no sense. If people were even capable of that, there would be no need for education, and it's one of the dumbest things I can imagine anyone saying.
Too many "scientists" today are rote learners... I have had plenty through my lab... smashing everything and pulling results from behind their backs !!!
Wouldn't YOU be the only 'scientist" in your lab? Then that statement would make sense.
Oh please. That's the second most riduculous thing you've said in this post....
Oh please. That's the second most riduculous thing you've said in this post....
Get real lad, and think before your post, your record is abysmal.
Make that last one the third, because this one takes top tier. Do you even read the posts here? Do you make any effort at all to maintain touch with reality? You are so far gone into your own little world I haven't seen you make a single correct statement in weeks. NOT EVEN BY ACCIDENT!!!
As far as example with riffle goes - check the history and remember Hiroshima.
Majkl, I have no idea what your response was suppose to be. Every one of those situations I listed was distinctly possible. The questions I posed to you went unanswered, so now here I am, asking you to directly answer my direct questions.
ARE THOSE EXAMPLES HARMFUL OR NOT, AND WHY?
If you can respond reasonably we can continue to debate the subject. If you can't, then I don't know what you're even doing here.
QUOTE
your history BDW ?
Is that the best insult you can think of? "I know you are but what am I?" might have been wittier than that...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| your history BDW ? |
Is that the best insult you can think of? "I know you are but what am I?" might have been wittier than that...
That student SHOULD fail
Really?
QUOTE
if they have no discerning power they have no right to operate by rote in science, and especially in math...that is a logic process, and tests are on logic NOT 'formulated' answers .
So let me get this straight... You think a student should have enough knowledge of the subject he or she is studying to discern all false claims about that subject by the time they begin their education? That makes absolutely no sense. If people were even capable of that, there would be no need for education, and it's one of the dumbest things I can imagine anyone saying.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| if they have no discerning power they have no right to operate by rote in science, and especially in math...that is a logic process, and tests are on logic NOT 'formulated' answers . |
So let me get this straight... You think a student should have enough knowledge of the subject he or she is studying to discern all false claims about that subject by the time they begin their education? That makes absolutely no sense. If people were even capable of that, there would be no need for education, and it's one of the dumbest things I can imagine anyone saying.
Too many "scientists" today are rote learners... I have had plenty through my lab... smashing everything and pulling results from behind their backs !!!
Wouldn't YOU be the only 'scientist" in your lab? Then that statement would make sense.
QUOTE
Your life may depend on one of these posers one day, and you will lose.
Oh please. That's the second most riduculous thing you've said in this post....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your life may depend on one of these posers one day, and you will lose. |
Oh please. That's the second most riduculous thing you've said in this post....
Get real lad, and think before your post, your record is abysmal.
Make that last one the third, because this one takes top tier. Do you even read the posts here? Do you make any effort at all to maintain touch with reality? You are so far gone into your own little world I haven't seen you make a single correct statement in weeks. NOT EVEN BY ACCIDENT!!!
Wow this is precious. The Forum Mafia complaining about personal attacks. I never thought I would see that.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Wow this is precious. The Forum Mafia complaining about personal attacks. I never thought I would see that.
Wow this is precious. deadbeat actually posting something that isn't hypocritical. I never thought I would see that.
Oh, wait...
Wow this is precious. deadbeat actually posting something that isn't hypocritical. I never thought I would see that.
Oh, wait...
QUOTE (TheDoc+Apr 6 2008, 08:10 PM)
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Wow this is precious. The Forum Mafia complaining about personal attacks. I never thought I would see that.
Wow this is precious. deadbeat actually posting something that isn't hypocritical. I never thought I would see that.
Oh, wait...
All right, all right, I got my warning, woke up, and I am behaving now, aren't I?
Wow this is precious. deadbeat actually posting something that isn't hypocritical. I never thought I would see that.
Oh, wait...
All right, all right, I got my warning, woke up, and I am behaving now, aren't I?
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 7 2008, 11:53 AM)
All right, all right, I got my warning, woke up, and I am behaving now, aren't I?
No, you're not. Behaving yourself would include explicitly admitting and preferably apologizing for your prior lies and insults. So far, I've only seen this post, which implicitly admits your prior insults.
No, you're not. Behaving yourself would include explicitly admitting and preferably apologizing for your prior lies and insults. So far, I've only seen this post, which implicitly admits your prior insults.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 7 2008, 05:00 PM)
No, you're not. Behaving yourself would include explicitly admitting and preferably apologizing for your prior lies and insults. So far, I've only seen this post, which implicitly admits your prior insults.
Insults, mea culpa, I agree I was angered and descended further than I should have. I got my warning and had top review my behavior. I hope some others that incited and amplified it also got warnings, but I am certainly responsible for my own behavior.
But I still do not acknowledge LIES. You may want to examine your own behavior.
A Lie first of all presupposes knowledge of the falsity, and as far as I am aware, I made no knowingly false statements.
I may have been wrong a couple times, but when that has happened I acknowledge it and move on.
Insults, mea culpa, I agree I was angered and descended further than I should have. I got my warning and had top review my behavior. I hope some others that incited and amplified it also got warnings, but I am certainly responsible for my own behavior.
But I still do not acknowledge LIES. You may want to examine your own behavior.
A Lie first of all presupposes knowledge of the falsity, and as far as I am aware, I made no knowingly false statements.
I may have been wrong a couple times, but when that has happened I acknowledge it and move on.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 7 2008, 12:22 PM)
But I still do not acknowledge LIES. You may want to examine your own behavior.
A Lie first of all presupposes knowledge of the falsity, and as far as I am aware, I made no knowingly false statements.
I may have been wrong a couple times, but when that has happened I acknowledge it and move on.
A Lie first of all presupposes knowledge of the falsity, and as far as I am aware, I made no knowingly false statements.
I may have been wrong a couple times, but when that has happened I acknowledge it and move on.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
How hypocritical is that? I suppose you think I should just argue the way you seem to do, by typing HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA and assuming that somehow proves my point, instead of actually providing evidence and logic to support my point.
Yes you are right, that is exactly what you are doing. I am the one providing evidence, and external references. You are arguing in direct contravention to the provided unbiased resources, with nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
Care to point out any instance of me typing HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA in response to one of your 'points' and not responding any further?
Yes you are right, that is exactly what you are doing. I am the one providing evidence, and external references. You are arguing in direct contravention to the provided unbiased resources, with nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
Care to point out any instance of me typing HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA in response to one of your 'points' and not responding any further?
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
All external sources agree with me. They all disagree with you.
Really? and yet you fail to mention even one? Shocking.
Care to point out how my definition of religion (taken from www.dictionary.com) somehow differed with the one at www.dictionary.com? I'll be AMAZED if you manage to do that...
Or what about:
Yes you are right, that is exactly what you are doing. I am the one providing evidence, and external references. You are arguing in direct contravention to the provided unbiased resources, with nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
Care to point out any instance of me typing HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA in response to one of your 'points' and not responding any further?
I only do that when your arguments are so feeble they are OBVIOUSLY silly. Like the Declaration of Independence not being a Founding Document.
In spite of the fact outside unbiased sources refer to it as such, IT IS THE REASON WE CELEBRATE OUR INDEPENDENCE DAY ON JULY THE FOURTH.
Dude it is not just me that is laughing. Seriously.
That somehow "religion" is prevented from polluting our government that was formed on "Deistic" principles? Come on. That IS funny. The religion of DEISM is the basic founding institution of our government (so you guys keep insinuating, saying ALL THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE DEISTS which is also patently deluded), that prevents religion from participating, or being represented in any way? Even though DEISM is a religion itself?
All external sources agree with me. They all disagree with you.
Really? and yet you fail to mention even one? Shocking.
Care to point out how my definition of religion (taken from www.dictionary.com) somehow differed with the one at www.dictionary.com? I'll be AMAZED if you manage to do that...
Uh no. But you failed to notice IT WAS MY DEFINITION IN THE FIRST PLACE. I provided the initial quote, link and source. You make a big deal about "esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, " obviously missing the logical boat. The very first word of that is ESP.
lets examine especially (again)
es·pe·cial·ly –adverb particularly; exceptionally; markedly: Be especially watchful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME; see especial, -ly]
—Synonyms signally, notably; mainly. Especially, chiefly, particularly, principally refer to those cases that seem to be significant. Especially and particularly single out the most prominent case or example (often in order to particularize a general statement): Winter is especially severe on old people. Corn grows well in the Middle West, particularly in Iowa. Chiefly and principally imply that the general statement applies to a majority of the cases in question, and have a somewhat comparative force: Owls fly chiefly at night. Crime occurs principally in large cities.
What you seem to be missing is that does not mean ONLY. So while it may USUALLY and CHIEFLY involve supernatural or superhuman agency, THERE ARE ALSO VALID OCCASIONS WHEN IT DOES NOT. Which defeats the silly definition they were attempting to foist off, which stated ALWAYS, the exact opposite.
Or what about:
Really? and yet you fail to mention even one? Shocking.
Care to point out how my definition of religion (taken from www.dictionary.com) somehow differed with the one at www.dictionary.com? I'll be AMAZED if you manage to do that...
Or what about:
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Atheist have no ethics or morals.
Care to explain how you can honestly not know this to be false?
Or what about this one?
Allow me to quote the two relevant definitions.
www.dictionary.com: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
deadbeat's: "a specific fundamental set of concepts or tenets and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"
Are you going to claim that you were unaware of the "concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe" portion of the www.dictionary.com definition? Or are you going to claim it has absolutely no meaning? Or that it's only there as a form of 'emphesis?'
Basically, you're either dishonest in the extreme, or severely mentally handicapped and incapable of meaningful communication.
I doubt it's the latter.
As for examining my own behavior, quote some of my 'lies.'
Link us all to places where I have demonstratably lied. Please, do.
Care to explain how you can honestly not know this to be false?
Or what about this one?
QUOTE
Ahem... the poll is useless anyway, they both have the same functional meaning, with exception of emphasis.
Allow me to quote the two relevant definitions.
www.dictionary.com: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
deadbeat's: "a specific fundamental set of concepts or tenets and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"
Are you going to claim that you were unaware of the "concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe" portion of the www.dictionary.com definition? Or are you going to claim it has absolutely no meaning? Or that it's only there as a form of 'emphesis?'
Basically, you're either dishonest in the extreme, or severely mentally handicapped and incapable of meaningful communication.
I doubt it's the latter.
As for examining my own behavior, quote some of my 'lies.'
Link us all to places where I have demonstratably lied. Please, do.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 7 2008, 05:37 PM)
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Yes you are right, that is exactly what you are doing. I am the one providing evidence, and external references. You are arguing in direct contravention to the provided unbiased resources, with nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
Care to point out any instance of me typing HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA in response to one of your 'points' and not responding any further?
I only do that when your arguments are so feeble they are OBVIOUSLY silly. Like the Declaration of Independence not being a Founding Document.
In spite of the fact outside unbiased sources refer to it as such, IT IS THE REASON WE CELEBRATE OUR INDEPENDENCE DAY ON JULY THE FOURTH.
Dude it is not just me that is laughing. Seriously.
That somehow "religion" is prevented from polluting our government that was formed on "Deistic" principles? Come on. That IS funny. The religion of DEISM is the basic founding institution of our government (so you guys keep insinuating, saying ALL THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE DEISTS which is also patently deluded), that prevents religion from participating, or being represented in any way? Even though DEISM is a religion itself?
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
All external sources agree with me. They all disagree with you.
Really? and yet you fail to mention even one? Shocking.
Care to point out how my definition of religion (taken from www.dictionary.com) somehow differed with the one at www.dictionary.com? I'll be AMAZED if you manage to do that...
Uh no. But you failed to notice IT WAS MY DEFINITION IN THE FIRST PLACE. I provided the initial quote, link and source. You make a big deal about "esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, " obviously missing the logical boat. The very first word of that is ESP.
lets examine especially (again)
QUOTE (dictionary.com+ especially)
es·pe·cial·ly –adverb particularly; exceptionally; markedly: Be especially watchful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME; see especial, -ly]
—Synonyms signally, notably; mainly. Especially, chiefly, particularly, principally refer to those cases that seem to be significant. Especially and particularly single out the most prominent case or example (often in order to particularize a general statement): Winter is especially severe on old people. Corn grows well in the Middle West, particularly in Iowa. Chiefly and principally imply that the general statement applies to a majority of the cases in question, and have a somewhat comparative force: Owls fly chiefly at night. Crime occurs principally in large cities.
What you seem to be missing is that does not mean ONLY. So while it may USUALLY and CHIEFLY involve supernatural or superhuman agency, THERE ARE ALSO VALID OCCASIONS WHEN IT DOES NOT. Which defeats the silly definition they were attempting to foist off, which stated ALWAYS, the exact opposite.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
Or what about:
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Atheist have no ethics or morals.
Care to explain how you can honestly not know this to be false?
Of course, this is known as "reductio ad absurdum". Since Atheists were saying they only used "objective sources" for ethics and morals, and all ethics and morals are SUBJECTIVE, they IN EFFECT were making that case. Since it is not POSSIBLE to have objective ethics and morals, they were either LYING or just deluded. THAT was the point.
Or what about this one?
Allow me to quote the two relevant definitions.
www.dictionary.com: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
deadbeat's: "a specific fundamental set of concepts or tenets and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"
Are you going to claim that you were unaware of the "concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe" portion of the www.dictionary.com definition? Or are you going to claim it has absolutely no meaning? Or that it's only there as a form of 'emphesis?'
Basically, you're either dishonest in the extreme, or severely mentally handicapped and incapable of meaningful communication.
I doubt it's the latter.
As for examining my own behavior, quote some of my 'lies.'
Link us all to places where I have demonstratably lied. Please, do.
So here again we go back to that definition. Where you cannot seem to understand the import of the word ESPECIALLY at the very beginning of the sentence. Since it implies that religion can be definied as WITH (wait for it....) OR WITHOUT supernatural and superhuman agency, WITH or WITHOUT (do I have to define USUALLY for you too) devotional or ritual observances, and WITH OR WITHOUT (OFTEN does not mean ALWAYS either) containing a moral code.
So the definition (when the emphasis over which of the two choices in each case is removed, as both cases can be valid) boils down to "a specific fundamental set of concepts or tenets and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" just as I said.
And you have been running around with it in your signature, like it was somehow wrong. I STILL laugh about that.
Care to explain how you can honestly not know this to be false?
Of course, this is known as "reductio ad absurdum". Since Atheists were saying they only used "objective sources" for ethics and morals, and all ethics and morals are SUBJECTIVE, they IN EFFECT were making that case. Since it is not POSSIBLE to have objective ethics and morals, they were either LYING or just deluded. THAT was the point.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
Or what about this one?
Allow me to quote the two relevant definitions.
www.dictionary.com: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
deadbeat's: "a specific fundamental set of concepts or tenets and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"
Are you going to claim that you were unaware of the "concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe" portion of the www.dictionary.com definition? Or are you going to claim it has absolutely no meaning? Or that it's only there as a form of 'emphesis?'
Basically, you're either dishonest in the extreme, or severely mentally handicapped and incapable of meaningful communication.
I doubt it's the latter.
As for examining my own behavior, quote some of my 'lies.'
Link us all to places where I have demonstratably lied. Please, do.
So here again we go back to that definition. Where you cannot seem to understand the import of the word ESPECIALLY at the very beginning of the sentence. Since it implies that religion can be definied as WITH (wait for it....) OR WITHOUT supernatural and superhuman agency, WITH or WITHOUT (do I have to define USUALLY for you too) devotional or ritual observances, and WITH OR WITHOUT (OFTEN does not mean ALWAYS either) containing a moral code.
So the definition (when the emphasis over which of the two choices in each case is removed, as both cases can be valid) boils down to "a specific fundamental set of concepts or tenets and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" just as I said.
And you have been running around with it in your signature, like it was somehow wrong. I STILL laugh about that.
Some more info on July the Fourth from Wiki
John Adams, credited by Thomas Jefferson as the unofficial, tireless whip of the independence-minded, wrote to his wife Abigail on July 3, 1776:
The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.
Adams was off by two days, however. Certainly, the vote on July 2 was the decisive act. But July 4 is the date that Jefferson's stirring prose, as edited by the Congress, was officially adopted and was the first day Philadelphians heard any concrete news of independence from the Continental Congress, as opposed to rumors in the street about secret votes.
So WHAT WAS the founding document? Asserting the Constitution is absolute silliness. It was preceded by the Articles of Confederation.
QUOTE
John Adams, credited by Thomas Jefferson as the unofficial, tireless whip of the independence-minded, wrote to his wife Abigail on July 3, 1776:
The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.
Adams was off by two days, however. Certainly, the vote on July 2 was the decisive act. But July 4 is the date that Jefferson's stirring prose, as edited by the Congress, was officially adopted and was the first day Philadelphians heard any concrete news of independence from the Continental Congress, as opposed to rumors in the street about secret votes.
So WHAT WAS the founding document? Asserting the Constitution is absolute silliness. It was preceded by the Articles of Confederation.
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.