Sydney -what happened (Brisbane fans, read)
Sastan
Theatre in Sydney.
Here's how it went.
After about half and hour of wine and finger food we filed in to the
theatre. When Robert Jordan
appeared, I, and a number of people were shocked; we had passed by him a
number of times in the
hallway without recognising him; he's much larger than I expected him,
and at first I mistook him
for an Irishman.
RJ, and two other people were on the stage, while the rest of us down
below at our seats. RJwas
the only person who did not use a microphone - he has a large booming
voice that carried well
across the theatre.
Anyway, the Independant Bookstore rep introduced RJ and allowed him to
speak a little about how
glad he was to be there etc. Then he began reading from PoD, part of the
prologue. We were all
bored, and at the end of that, he gave us the option of continuing to
listen to him read, or he
could leave (he really did). So he next chose TDR, and spent about 10
minutes on that. At the end
of that we all dutifully clapped.
The rep then told us about RJ, details about his tour of duties, what
medals he was awarded, and
other details that we only had a basic knowledge of before (I did not
record it, so I can't
recall what exactly they were).
Then question time. Strangely enough, no-one in the audience had any
questions. To break the
silence, the bookstore rep asked his own, regarding how many books would
be released. RJ said a
minimum of three would be released, but probably moe; he was not sure
yet.
Again we were asked if we had any questions. Still silence, we were in
awe of the Creator. Then
one woman began bitching to him about how his series were ffecting her.
I don't recall exactly
what was said, but I do remember the last part "How long do I have to
love you for before you'll
tell us?". We all cracked up, with RJ visible shocked, stuttering "Could
you repeat that?".
After that everyone raised there hands, no longer shy.
He refused to give any plot details (RAFO) that were to be used in the
next books. He did explain
why Mat was not in PoD: Mat was in trouble last time we saw him, and the
PoD begins before that.
I managed to ask him about the issue of Rand and Elayne, asking why Rand
felt so relieved when he
was told he was not closely related to Elayne. RJ explained along the
lines of how this was a
quest that and alone could solve, that he needed to find out without
anyone else knowing about
it. He did not, however, say that it was settled that Tigraine and
Morgase are not cousins. Even
when I asked him a second time, he refused to say. Yet he did say, when
I asked, that he did not
consider Rand and Elayne's relationship through Galad to be of
importance, or that they were
related by blood. I agreed with the second part.
There were other details about RJ himself that came out. He mentioned
the FAQ, and how only 1/3
of it is correct. Another 1/3 is completely wrong, and the remaining 1/3
is parlty correct, but
not complete, even though the FAQ concludes some of these. I think this
means that the rasfwr-j
regulars can stop flaming anyone who asks questions that are covered in
the FAQ; NO, it is NOT an
excuse anymore that you have discussed everything their is too discuss;
according to RJ, 2/3 of
your holy FAQ needs rewriting and revising.
His wife was in fact a publisher, and it was through RJ's attempts to
get published that he met
her. He started dating her, and eventuallymarried her. She did in fact
offer to publish his book,
but RJ realised it was not a good idea to have his wife as his sole
source of income, so took it
elsewhere. Another detail that I can remember (whoever was in the front
row taping the event;
could you write up his exact words throughout the session?) is that he
used to write for a
women's erotic "soft-porn" author, who gave him a headstart in the
writing profession. His
pronounciation was interesting, and he was humourous (Lady: "How can you
deal with all the
stress?" RJ: "I am a Warrior-God").
After the questions, the rep presented some gifts to RJ. One was an
Australian Military history
(because of RJ's own passion for such matters) and the other was a Two
Rivers wine, from the Two
Rivers, in Hunter Valley, NSW.
I left the theatre before it ended, so I could be first in line for the
signing. Being there
early, only another rep and Harriet, RJ's wife, was present. I spent a
few minutes chatting with
her, before the rest of the crowd and RJ appeared. I did learn something
interesting from her;
she remember my institence on the Rand-Elayne issue, and told me that to
her and RJ 2nd cousins
were considered close family. Also, she and the rep got into a small
arguement over personalising
the signings, with the rep saying there were too many people to
personalise it, while Harriet
argued on our behalf, that we had paid $20 to come, and we should.
Eventually, she won out, at
least for the first 20 people. I don't know what happened after that. I
got three books signed,
and left soon after. One thing I asked Harriet while RJ was signing was
about their stay in
Sydney. I'm strongly tempted to go to the places they plan on visiting,
but I suppose that is on
the verge of stalking.
Basically, they're staying here until the 4th, when they go to New
Zealand.
After that, they're going to Brisbane, but she was not sure about the
exact date. So you
Brisbanites will have to ring up Penguin Books and find out for
yourself. And for those who did
not want to pay the $20, you should know that they stopped checking at
the door during the
signing, so anybody could have gone in and gotten their books signed.
That's it, seeya.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Mark Erikson
Sastan <sas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7qfoek$uua$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Yesterday (Monday 30th August) Robert Jordan appeared at the Independant
> Theatre in Sydney.
> Here's how it went.
> After about half and hour of wine and finger food we filed in to the
> theatre. When Robert Jordan
> appeared, I, and a number of people were shocked; we had passed by him a
> number of times in the
> hallway without recognising him; he's much larger than I expected him,
> and at first I mistook him
> for an Irishman.
He is an Irishman. Well, of Irish descent anyway, fairly pure, I'm lead to
believe.
What you've said here sounds interesting, but I can't understand it. Are
you saying that Rand doesn't care if he and Elayne are close cousins, but
there is some other reason?
> There were other details about RJ himself that came out. He mentioned
> the FAQ, and how only 1/3
> of it is correct. Another 1/3 is completely wrong, and the remaining 1/3
> is parlty correct, but
> not complete, even though the FAQ concludes some of these. I think this
> means that the rasfwr-j
> regulars can stop flaming anyone who asks questions that are covered in
> the FAQ; NO, it is NOT an
> excuse anymore that you have discussed everything their is too discuss;
> according to RJ, 2/3 of
> your holy FAQ needs rewriting and revising.
We already knew that, he's said it on several occasions in past years.
--
-Mark Erikson, 17 year old virgin
asha...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/3730/
'If you have any questions, stick 'em up your ass'
-Bob Cock
Sastan
<asha...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>Sastan <sas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>news:7qfoek$uua$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> I managed to ask him about the issue of Rand and Elayne, asking why Rand
>> felt so relieved when he
>> was told he was not closely related to Elayne. RJ explained along the
>> lines of how this was a
>> quest that and alone could solve, that he needed to find out without
>> anyone else knowing about
>> it. He did not, however, say that it was settled that Tigraine and
>> Morgase are not cousins. Even
>> when I asked him a second time, he refused to say. Yet he did say, when
>> I asked, that he did not
>> consider Rand and Elayne's relationship through Galad to be of
>> importance, or that they were
>> related by blood. I agreed with the second part.
>
>What you've said here sounds interesting, but I can't understand it. Are
>you saying that Rand doesn't care if he and Elayne are close cousins, but
>there is some other reason?
No, what I think he said was that it was up to Rand alone, and it
would be kept with Rand; and that he would not reveal the details of
Tigraine being his mother to anyone.
>
>> There were other details about RJ himself that came out. He mentioned
>> the FAQ, and how only 1/3
>> of it is correct. Another 1/3 is completely wrong, and the remaining 1/3
>> is parlty correct, but
>> not complete, even though the FAQ concludes some of these. I think this
>> means that the rasfwr-j
>> regulars can stop flaming anyone who asks questions that are covered in
>> the FAQ; NO, it is NOT an
>> excuse anymore that you have discussed everything their is too discuss;
>> according to RJ, 2/3 of
>> your holy FAQ needs rewriting and revising.
>
>We already knew that, he's said it on several occasions in past years.
>
And still the idiots at rasfwr-j continue to flame with the FAQ as
justification.
Mark Erikson
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:14:13 +1000, "Mark Erikson"
> <asha...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Sastan <sas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:7qfoek$uua$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
Rand
> >> felt so relieved when he
> >> was told he was not closely related to Elayne. RJ explained along the
> >> lines of how this was a
> >> quest that and alone could solve, that he needed to find out without
> >> anyone else knowing about
> >> it. He did not, however, say that it was settled that Tigraine and
> >> Morgase are not cousins. Even
> >> when I asked him a second time, he refused to say. Yet he did say, when
> >> I asked, that he did not
> >> consider Rand and Elayne's relationship through Galad to be of
> >> importance, or that they were
> >> related by blood. I agreed with the second part.
> >
> >you saying that Rand doesn't care if he and Elayne are close cousins, but
> >there is some other reason?
>
> No, what I think he said was that it was up to Rand alone, and it
> would be kept with Rand; and that he would not reveal the details of
> Tigraine being his mother to anyone.
> >
> >> the FAQ, and how only 1/3
> >> of it is correct. Another 1/3 is completely wrong, and the remaining
1/3
> >> is parlty correct, but
> >> not complete, even though the FAQ concludes some of these. I think this
> >> means that the rasfwr-j
> >> regulars can stop flaming anyone who asks questions that are covered in
> >> the FAQ; NO, it is NOT an
> >> excuse anymore that you have discussed everything their is too discuss;
> >> according to RJ, 2/3 of
> >> your holy FAQ needs rewriting and revising.
> >
> >
> And still the idiots at rasfwr-j continue to flame with the FAQ as
> justification.
Yeah, idiots. Intelligent people know that you don't need any justification
to flame.
Carlton Jenke
>
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:14:13 +1000, "Mark Erikson"
> <asha...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Sastan <sas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:7qfoek$uua$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<snip FAQ 1/3 right, 1/3 wrong, 1/3 incomplete>
> >> I think this
> >> means that the rasfwr-j
> >> regulars can stop flaming anyone who asks questions that are covered in
> >> the FAQ; NO, it is NOT an
> >> excuse anymore that you have discussed everything their is too discuss;
> >> according to RJ, 2/3 of
> >> your holy FAQ needs rewriting and revising.
> >
> >We already knew that, he's said it on several occasions in past years.
> >
> And still the idiots at rasfwr-j continue to flame with the FAQ as
> justification.
Now, now, I can't recall ever seeing someone state that they were
correct because the FAQ says so.
The FAQ is merely a compilation of topics that have reasoned out, in
most cases almost beaten to death. In most cases when someone is pointed
to the FAQ, it is because they are starting a theory that has already
been hashed out - what sense is there in dragging up arguements that
were had several years ago?
There have been times that someone comes up with a new point about a
theory in the FAQ, which is perfectly acceptable.
We know the FAQ's not totally right, but its the best theories the minds
of this newsgroup have come up with.
--
Carlton Jenke
Dummer
St. Chucky the Chunderous wrote:
>
>WHAT minds?????
yours?
St. Chucky the Chunderous
>We know the FAQ's not totally right, but its the best theories the minds
>of this newsgroup have come up with.
>--
>Carlton Jenke
God help us all.
WHAT minds?????
St. Chuck
--
"I've only kissed one girl before, my Grandma on the kitchen floor,
She dribbled and grinned and said, Hey kid .....
You taught me things your Grandpa never did!
She added there'd be Hell to pay, if Ma found out we'd gone astray,
So hurry Paul, go and get some sleep.....
You've finally got a skill to teach the sheep."
D.A.A.S., Paul McDermott, "World's Best Kisser"
And check out my Homepage at http://www.omen.net.au/~hatboy/
Follow the links through the 'Other Shit' section to my bit about the Wheel
of Time.
Kalten Pryde
--
Kalten Pryde
"Men will lie to you, your eyes will decieve
you. Steel never lies, nor decieves, nor
hides bitter reality, in the sword, you can
find truth." - Kakita's "The Sword"
Sastan <sas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7qfoek$uua$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Paul Raj Khangure
: Hehe....... my friends and I were sitting behind you :-)
[you = sastan]
Is he as complete a fuckwit in real life, as he is on this newsgroup?
Paul Raj Khangure
--
I stayed up all last night playing poker with tarot cards.
I got a full house and four people died.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Sastan
Carlton Jenke <carlto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sastan wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:14:13 +1000, "Mark Erikson"
> > <asha...@geocities.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
>
> > >> means that the rasfwr-j
> > >> regulars can stop flaming anyone who asks questions that are
covered in
> > >> the FAQ; NO, it is NOT an
> > >> excuse anymore that you have discussed everything their is too
discuss;
> > >> according to RJ, 2/3 of
> > >> your holy FAQ needs rewriting and revising.
> > >
years.
> > >
> > And still the idiots at rasfwr-j continue to flame with the FAQ as
> > justification.
>
> Now, now, I can't recall ever seeing someone state that they were
> correct because the FAQ says so.
>
> The FAQ is merely a compilation of topics that have reasoned out, in
> most cases almost beaten to death. In most cases when someone is
pointed
> to the FAQ, it is because they are starting a theory that has already
> been hashed out - what sense is there in dragging up arguements that
> were had several years ago?
>
> There have been times that someone comes up with a new point about a
> theory in the FAQ, which is perfectly acceptable.
>
minds
> of this newsgroup have come up with.
That's not the point. Everytime a newbie (or most other people) want to
discuss something that the FAq seems to have concluded, they often get
flamed, telling them that it is already covered in the FAQ.
Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, people go to the newsgroups
(in general) to hear other people's points of view, whether they are
old or not.
Sastan
Paul Raj Khangure <p...@sweet-thang.digitaljunkie.net> wrote:
> In rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan Kalten Pryde
<hy...@nsw.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
Were you with that guy who laughed really loudly everytime RJ even
hinted at a little humour? He was annoying. You a blonde?
> [you = sastan]
you don't say.
> Is he as complete a fuckwit in real life, as he is on this newsgroup?
I'll answer that. Let's see if I fit the criteria for a non-member of
the rasfwr-j mob (ie. fuckwit)....
a) I chose to speak on WoT-related topics
b) I chose not to flame others in the audience who chose to speak on
WoT-related topics ( eg. "Read the Fucking FAQ!!!")
c) I chose not to suck up to the few who identified themselves as
rasfwr-j'ers.
I guess you're right, I am a fuckwit in person. Let me continue in my
tradition:
here follows new point system of how to be a complete wanker:
5 points - for calling a person a troll for having a slightly
contreversial
view about WoT
15 points - for calling a person a troll for making a sexual reference
towards a character from WoT
20 points - for crying when someone comments on their sexual encounters
with
creatures from WoT
50 points - for not mentally being able to recognise a bit of humour in
a
already sad world
100 points for kilfiling another person - this is one way to be an
ultimate
wanker - to remove somones free speech or to turn your head at what
somone
wants to say - why the like of martin luther king would turn in his
grave
200 points - for taking the time and trouble to get a 'troll' removed
from
isp this is possible the saddest wanker trick of all
Paul. although I only faintly recognise your name, I do recognise you as
being a friends with your fellow idiots. Well, you guys have the
all-time highest marks for this score. Congrats.
Kalten Pryde
--
Kalten Pryde
"Men will lie to you, your eyes will decieve
you. Steel never lies, nor decieves, nor
hides bitter reality, in the sword, you can
find truth." - Kakita's "The Sword"
Paul Raj Khangure <p...@sweet-thang.digitaljunkie.net> wrote in message
news:7qkro2$j6q$1...@she-bitch.digitaljunkie.net...
> In rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan Kalten Pryde
<hy...@nsw.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> : Hehe....... my friends and I were sitting behind you :-)
>
> [you = sastan]
>
> Is he as complete a fuckwit in real life, as he is on this newsgroup?
>
>
Mark Ferguson
Sastan wrote:
[snip]
> here follows new point system of how to be a complete wanker:
>
> 5 points - for calling a person a troll for having a slightly
> contreversial
> view about WoT
>
> 15 points - for calling a person a troll for making a sexual reference
> towards a character from WoT
>
> 20 points - for crying when someone comments on their sexual encounters
> with
> creatures from WoT
>
> 50 points - for not mentally being able to recognise a bit of humour in
> a
> already sad world
>
> 100 points for kilfiling another person - this is one way to be an
> ultimate
> wanker - to remove somones free speech or to turn your head at what
> somone
> wants to say - why the like of martin luther king would turn in his
> grave
>
> 200 points - for taking the time and trouble to get a 'troll' removed
> from
> isp this is possible the saddest wanker trick of all
>
[snip]
Woo, I gave someone five points. When I first came to the newsgroup I
stated that my favorite scene was when Mazrim Taim says to the Aes Sedai
at Dumai's Wells, "Kneel, or you will be knelt". It was concluded that I
was a troll, for having a controversial view and enjoying watching the
"poor, horribly treated Aes Sedai" humbled. :P I suppose I see their
point now about the Aes Sedai being mistreated, but remembering my
little essay being dismissed as a troll still pisses me off...
Mark
St. Chucky the Chunderous
>
>St. Chucky the Chunderous wrote:
>>
>>WHAT minds?????
>
>
>yours?
Hee hee hee, my 'mind' had nothing to do with THAT FAQ.
Carlton Jenke
>
<snip FAQ discussion>
> That's not the point. Everytime a newbie (or most other people) want to
> discuss something that the FAq seems to have concluded, they often get
> flamed, telling them that it is already covered in the FAQ.
> Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, people go to the newsgroups
> (in general) to hear other people's points of view, whether they are
> old or not.
>
So what's wrong with showing them where our point of view has been
recorded? That's all the FAQ is, our collective point of view. If that's
what you want to see, its actually easier to look at the FAQ.
--
Carlton Jenke
Fenske
Carlton Jenke <carlto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37CE9B64...@yahoo.com...
> So what's wrong with showing them where our point of view has been
> recorded? That's all the FAQ is, our collective point of view. If that's
> what you want to see, its actually easier to look at the FAQ.
But everything in the FAQ is not everyone's point of view. That's what
people come here for, differing points of view.
If you totally feel the need to direct someone to the FAQ, people should at
least have the courtesy to address the subject in question with their own
words first and then say something like, "And if you want to see where these
points are written down and maybe see some others on other things go to the
FAQ." Answering every question on an old subject that you think is finished
with "Read the FAQ" is rude and just pisses people off because those new
people can feel that you think they aren't worthy of actually being spoken
to.
Fenske
Jeff Huo
> Carlton Jenke <carlto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:37CE9B64...@yahoo.com...
> > So what's wrong with showing them where our point of view has been
> > recorded? That's all the FAQ is, our collective point of view. If that's
> > what you want to see, its actually easier to look at the FAQ.
>
> But everything in the FAQ is not everyone's point of view. That's what
> people come here for, differing points of view.
> ...
> FAQ." Answering every question on an old subject that you think is finished
> with "Read the FAQ" is rude and just pisses people off because those new
> people can feel that you think they aren't worthy of actually being spoken
> to.
Perhaps drawing an analogy to discourse in science would help; when
a new fields opens, people write and publish articles about certain
observations and findings in that field. Eventually, a consensus
materializes about certain ideas. The articles most exemplifying the
widely-accepted paradigms are collected as review articles. Anyone
entering the field from that point foward is expected, as a matter of
course, to have read those central review articles (or textbooks,
which are really nothing but really big review articles) and be familiar
with their contents prior to beginning discussion. Dissention from
the status quo is certainly acceptable --but is always written in the
format of "X article claims Y, which is untrue because of Z, A,
and B". You -always- cite previous refrences in any article. Period.
If someone in biology were to try to submit an article that said
the exact same thing as a previous article, the field would firmly
point them at the relevant source -- in essence, "Read the FAQ."
Someone who tries to contribute to a discussion withouth being
familiar with what was previously written would be treated
with extreme scorn, if not outright abuse. So why should it
be any different here? In science, if you don't bother to
familiarize yourself with previous literature before entering
a discussion, you -are- basically considered not worth
being spoken to. So, especially in a group where the
current thought is explicitly spelled out and pointers to
it constantly shown, should it be any different here?
It is one thing to say, "Although the FAQ at section
W.X.Y.Z says this, I think this is wrong because of A,
B, and C". It is another just to toss out an idea that is
explicitly already covered. If you quote the FAQ, noone
can tell you to go read it --unless you've missed something
in another portion of the FAQ. If you've got the evidence,
noone can dismiss you out of hand --if you don't and post
anyway, you get what you deserve. Just as it is in science.
True, we may use expletives a bit more often than they
do in science, but the sentiments are the same.
Does that help?
-Jeff
----
Jeff Huo | je...@nospam.starfall.com
U. Michigan Med | http://www.starfall.com/~jeff
He only earns his freedom and his life
who take them every day by storm. --From Goethe's Faust
Chelo Felice
*pout* I don't want to be a troll.
Kevin 'Evinrude' Bartlett
[sa'snip]
>Does that help?
It would, if those who needed to read it had the necessary attention
span. (Hint: this is not a criticism of you, Jeff.)
Kevinrude
--
klba...@u.washington.edu - Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
http://students.washington.edu/klbartle/lanfear/
roxa...@my-deja.com
>So, especially in a group where the current thought is explicitly
>spelled out and pointers to it constantly shown, should it be any
>different here?
also i havent read the faq as im sure many others havent
if you have already read this argument stay away from the topic instead
of annoying the fuck out of everyone else
Kalten Pryde
> hinted at a little humour? He was annoying. You a blonde?
--
Kalten Pryde
"Men will lie to you, your eyes will decieve
you. Steel never lies, nor decieves, nor
hides bitter reality, in the sword, you can
find truth." - Kakita's "The Sword"
Sastan <sas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7ql32k$s6o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7qkro2$j6q$1...@she-bitch.digitaljunkie.net>,
> Paul Raj Khangure <p...@sweet-thang.digitaljunkie.net> wrote:
> > In rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan Kalten Pryde
> <hy...@nsw.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > : Hehe....... my friends and I were sitting behind you :-)
>
>
> > [you = sastan]
>
> you don't say.
>
> > Is he as complete a fuckwit in real life, as he is on this newsgroup?
>
> I'll answer that. Let's see if I fit the criteria for a non-member of
> the rasfwr-j mob (ie. fuckwit)....
>
> a) I chose to speak on WoT-related topics
> b) I chose not to flame others in the audience who chose to speak on
> WoT-related topics ( eg. "Read the Fucking FAQ!!!")
> c) I chose not to suck up to the few who identified themselves as
> rasfwr-j'ers.
>
> I guess you're right, I am a fuckwit in person. Let me continue in my
> tradition:
>
> here follows new point system of how to be a complete wanker:
>
> 5 points - for calling a person a troll for having a slightly
> contreversial
> view about WoT
>
> 15 points - for calling a person a troll for making a sexual reference
> towards a character from WoT
>
> 20 points - for crying when someone comments on their sexual encounters
> with
> creatures from WoT
>
> 50 points - for not mentally being able to recognise a bit of humour in
> a
> already sad world
>
> 100 points for kilfiling another person - this is one way to be an
> ultimate
> wanker - to remove somones free speech or to turn your head at what
> somone
> wants to say - why the like of martin luther king would turn in his
> grave
>
> 200 points - for taking the time and trouble to get a 'troll' removed
> from
> isp this is possible the saddest wanker trick of all
>
> Paul. although I only faintly recognise your name, I do recognise you as
> being a friends with your fellow idiots. Well, you guys have the
> all-time highest marks for this score. Congrats.
>
>
Kalten Pryde
> hinted at a little humour? He was annoying. You a blonde?
Yeah (kinda blonde-brown) I was sitting in the middle of that group.
--
Kalten Pryde
"Men will lie to you, your eyes will decieve
you. Steel never lies, nor decieves, nor
hides bitter reality, in the sword, you can
find truth." - Kakita's "The Sword"
Sastan <sas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
Kalten Pryde
> hinted at a little humour? He was annoying. You a blonde?
Yeah (kinda blonde-brown) I was sitting in the middle of that group.
--
Kalten Pryde
"Men will lie to you, your eyes will decieve
you. Steel never lies, nor decieves, nor
hides bitter reality, in the sword, you can
find truth." - Kakita's "The Sword"
Sastan <sas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
Carlton Jenke
>
<snip Jeff's analogy of scientific circles, why people should read the
FAQ>
Jeff, thanks for stating that so clearly. You summed up my feelings, and
probably those of the majority of rasfwr-j[1], very well.
--
Carlton Jenke
[1] Sorry, I don't know those at afr-j.
St. Chucky the Chunderous
>> Were you with that guy who laughed really loudly everytime RJ even
>> hinted at a little humour? He was annoying. You a blonde?
>Yeah (kinda blonde-brown) I was sitting in the middle of that group.
I say I say I say
everything three times, three times, three times.
Hee (hee hee)
Mister C
<carlto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[1] Sorry, I don't know those at afr-j.
yes. wrong on that one...
--
"All I really wanted was to drag him, kicking
and screaming, into the 21st Century. How
could I know he had an allergy to knives?"
- St. Alia Von.
---
if you want to be slippy, go to
http://www.omen.net.au/~cgp
where creepy ghoul productions
can mess with your mind
and influence your hunger
<message ends>
Carlton Jenke
>
> On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:07:20 -0500, Carlton Jenke
> <carlto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >[1] Sorry, I don't know those at afr-j.
>
> yes. wrong on that one...
>
What's wrong? I can personnally guarantee that I do not know the
feelings of those on afr-j, since I have never been there. I only
claimed to have some grasp on those of rasfwr-j, since I've been fairly
regular here for about 9 months now.
--
Carlton Jenke
Ben Wolfson
>
> >So, especially in a group where the current thought is explicitly
> >spelled out and pointers to it constantly shown, should it be any
> >different here?
> umm yeah, cause its a fucking newsgroup
> also i havent read the faq as im sure many others havent
> if you have already read this argument stay away from the topic instead
> of annoying the fuck out of everyone else
What a cogent argument.
--
Barnabas T. Rumjuggler
"No, 'eureka' is Greek for 'this bath is too hot'"
--Doctor Who
Mister C
<carlto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>What's wrong? I can personnally guarantee that I do not know the
>feelings of those on afr-j, since I have never been there. I only
>claimed to have some grasp on those of rasfwr-j, since I've been fairly
>regular here for about 9 months now.
i know you did. i was speaking on behalf of afr-j. why the hell we're
all cross-posting is beyond me. i guess i got used to not looking at
the groups i was sending to until ol' ether butted his freaky face in.
my apologies if i didn't seem clear with my one-sentence reply. i've
got a migraine and one sentences replies have been almost the best i
could do just over the last few days.
Kalten Pryde
--
Kalten Pryde
"Men will lie to you, your eyes will decieve
you. Steel never lies, nor decieves, nor
hides bitter reality, in the sword, you can
find truth." - Kakita's "The Sword"
Kalten Pryde <hy...@nsw.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:7qoh06$605$1...@m2.c2.telstra-mm.net.au...
> > Were you with that guy who laughed really loudly everytime RJ even
> > hinted at a little humour? He was annoying. You a blonde?
> Yeah (kinda blonde-brown) I was sitting in the middle of that group.
>
> --
> Kalten Pryde
> "Men will lie to you, your eyes will decieve
> you. Steel never lies, nor decieves, nor
> hides bitter reality, in the sword, you can
> find truth." - Kakita's "The Sword"
> Sastan <sas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
St. Chucky the Chunderous
>roxa...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >So, especially in a group where the current thought is explicitly
>> >spelled out and pointers to it constantly shown, should it be any
>> >different here?
>> umm yeah, cause its a fucking newsgroup
>> also i havent read the faq as im sure many others havent
>> if you have already read this argument stay away from the topic instead
>> of annoying the fuck out of everyone else
>
>What a cogent argument.
And if I may say, what brilliant use of the word "cogent" - which St.
Chucky's dictionary (started before I read the Dark One's Dictionary, but
remarkably similar) defines thusly:
COGENT: Two men urinating into the same pan.
John S. Novak, III
>If you totally feel the need to direct someone to the FAQ, people should at
>least have the courtesy to address the subject in question with their own
>words first and then say something like, "And if you want to see where these
>points are written down and maybe see some others on other things go to the
>FAQ."
Fine.
You do that.
I won't.
The reason the damn thing was written in the first place is because
answering the same tired old question about Tigraine, or about the
black cords seen about the male Forsaken, or whatever, just gets
Fucking Boring.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
The Humblest Man on the Net
Sastan
princ...@accesstoledo.com (Maggie ) wrote:
> Carlton Jenke < carlto...@yahoo.com> merrily proclaimed...
>
> <Crosspost removed>
>
> > Mister C wrote:
> > > On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:07:20 -0500, Carlton Jenke
> > > <carlto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >[1] Sorry, I don't know those at afr-j.
> > > yes. wrong on that one...
>
> > feelings of those on afr-j, since I have never been there. I only
> > claimed to have some grasp on those of rasfwr-j, since I've been
fairly
> > regular here for about 9 months now.
>
>
> You see what I did at the top?
>
> Do that.
>
> Stop crossposting to the monkey house.
"Monkey house: location where tricky or questionable practices or
conduct abound -- usually used in plural"
Now why should he cease posting to rasfwr-j when you haven't?
> --
> Maggie UIN 10248195
Gotta be different, eh? What's wrong with ICQ no?
> http://www.chocolatefiends.com/princessmoo/
Princess Moo? I looked at your geocities page, and I have to say, you
don't look _that_ much like a cow. Your udders aren't _that_ big either.
> "I will. For chocolate."
Mooooooooooooooooo.
Sastan
> current thought is explicitly spelled out and pointers to
> it constantly shown, should it be any different here?
>
> W.X.Y.Z says this, I think this is wrong because of A,
> B, and C". It is another just to toss out an idea that is
> explicitly already covered. If you quote the FAQ, noone
> can tell you to go read it --unless you've missed something
> in another portion of the FAQ. If you've got the evidence,
> noone can dismiss you out of hand --if you don't and post
> anyway, you get what you deserve. Just as it is in science.
>
> True, we may use expletives a bit more often than they
> do in science, but the sentiments are the same.
>
> Does that help?
Not really. This is not a science. This is based on a ficticious world,
and there is an author of this world who can choose what is right and
what is not.
The posters at rasfwr-j, or afr-j, or any of the dozens of online
message boards have no official recognition which allows them to be the
"scientists".
All the requirements are is to have read the book. Of course the FAQ's a
great resource, but that does not bar anyone from bringing up the same
topics that have been discussed already.
Give FAQ pointers all you want, but don't flame anyone for bringing up
an old discussion.
We all find the Taim-Demandred discussion tiring - even annoying. What
do most of us do? Ignore it and allow them to discuss it with other
newbies, or anyone else who's currently interested in it.
Having being responsible for the FAQ does not give the right for an
ego-inflated elite of sycophants to flame others who have not been
involved in a newsgroup discussion before.
Sastan
mer...@value.net.DELETEDELETEDELETE (Hawk) wrote:
> Carlton Jenke <carlto...@yahoo.com>,
<37CE9B64...@yahoo.com>,
> shouted:
> >Sastan wrote:
>
> ><snip FAQ discussion>
> >> That's not the point. Everytime a newbie (or most other people)
want to
> >> discuss something that the FAq seems to have concluded, they often
get
> >> flamed, telling them that it is already covered in the FAQ.
> >> Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, people go to the
newsgroups
> >> (in general) to hear other people's points of view, whether they
are
> >> old or not.
>
> >recorded? That's all the FAQ is, our collective point of view. If
that's
> >what you want to see, its actually easier to look at the FAQ.
>
before so
> that anyone interested in a particular discussion can get caught up to
> speed on what has gone on before and not reinvent the bloody wheel
> everytime a topic is brought up again.
> The reason why the FAQ is 1/3rd wrong is because Pam has had to
include
> theories that she knows is wrong so that people will see the
arguements
> that have gone on before and not bring up the same, trite, commentary
> again and again. NO ONE REPUTABLE HAS EVER CLAIMED THAT THE FAQ IS
100%
> CORRECT.
AND NO-ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT IS HAS BEEN CLAIMED. What the hell is your
point?
>
> The FAQ is not here to stifle discussion. The FAQ is here to catch
> everyone up to speed so that the discussions can all take place on the
> same, level, playing field. If one wants to reinvent the wheel
everytime
> one has a theory and to not take advantage of collected knowledge,
that is
> that persons choice. Just don't expect many people to jump up and help
> that person out. Rehashing the same commentary over and over again
gets
> stale and boring extremely quickly.
You're absolutely right. It's everyone's personal choice. That means
there is no reason to flame anyone for not reading the FAQ, or for
bringing old widely-discussed topics. That is the !@#$ing point of this
thread.
> Now that that's been rehashed yet another bloody time, stop
cross-posting
> between rasfwrj and afrj. If someone on rasfwrj wants to know what's
> going on in afrj, that person will go there, and vice-versa.
You're right, anyone expecting a W0T-related topic should not post to
rasfwr-j, right? After all, it is the playground that you and your
friends want to keep to yourselves for socialising. No need to discuss
WoT topics; you guys no all there is.
Sastan
"St. Chucky the Chunderous" <hat...@omen.net.au> wrote:
> John S. Novak, III wrote in message ...
> Sheesh.
That's absolutely correct. Despite your obvious delusions, you are not
the !@#$ing owner/manager of this or any other newsgroup.
Mister C
>That's absolutely correct. Despite your obvious delusions, you are not
>the !@#$ing owner/manager of this or any other newsgroup.
you, sir, have your head screwed on correctly.
BPRice
BOTHER to ask RJ when the next Wheel of Time book would be released at any
of his Australian appearances?!?!? Or did A Path of Daggers just now get
released Down Under, and everybody's focused on that?
Mark Erikson wrote in message <37cbe108@nap-ns1>...
>
>Sastan <sas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>news:7qfoek$uua$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> Yesterday (Monday 30th August) Robert Jordan appeared at the Independant
>> Theatre in Sydney.
>> Here's how it went.
>> After about half and hour of wine and finger food we filed in to the
>> theatre. When Robert Jordan
>> appeared, I, and a number of people were shocked; we had passed by him a
>> number of times in the
>> hallway without recognising him; he's much larger than I expected him,
>> and at first I mistook him
>> for an Irishman.
>
>He is an Irishman. Well, of Irish descent anyway, fairly pure, I'm lead to
>believe.
>
>> RJ, and two other people were on the stage, while the rest of us down
>> below at our seats. RJwas
>> the only person who did not use a microphone - he has a large booming
>> voice that carried well
>> across the theatre.
>> Anyway, the Independant Bookstore rep introduced RJ and allowed him to
>> speak a little about how
>> glad he was to be there etc. Then he began reading from PoD, part of the
>> prologue. We were all
>> bored, and at the end of that, he gave us the option of continuing to
>> listen to him read, or he
>> could leave (he really did). So he next chose TDR, and spent about 10
>> minutes on that. At the end
>> of that we all dutifully clapped.
>> The rep then told us about RJ, details about his tour of duties, what
>> medals he was awarded, and
>> other details that we only had a basic knowledge of before (I did not
>> record it, so I can't
>> recall what exactly they were).
>> Then question time. Strangely enough, no-one in the audience had any
>> questions. To break the
>> silence, the bookstore rep asked his own, regarding how many books would
>> be released. RJ said a
>> minimum of three would be released, but probably moe; he was not sure
>> yet.
>> Again we were asked if we had any questions. Still silence, we were in
>> awe of the Creator. Then
>> one woman began bitching to him about how his series were ffecting her.
>> I don't recall exactly
>> what was said, but I do remember the last part "How long do I have to
>> love you for before you'll
>> tell us?". We all cracked up, with RJ visible shocked, stuttering "Could
>> you repeat that?".
>> After that everyone raised there hands, no longer shy.
>> He refused to give any plot details (RAFO) that were to be used in the
>> next books. He did explain
>> why Mat was not in PoD: Mat was in trouble last time we saw him, and the
>> PoD begins before that.
>> I managed to ask him about the issue of Rand and Elayne, asking why Rand
>> felt so relieved when he
>> was told he was not closely related to Elayne. RJ explained along the
>> lines of how this was a
>> quest that and alone could solve, that he needed to find out without
>> anyone else knowing about
>> it. He did not, however, say that it was settled that Tigraine and
>> Morgase are not cousins. Even
>> when I asked him a second time, he refused to say. Yet he did say, when
>> I asked, that he did not
>> consider Rand and Elayne's relationship through Galad to be of
>> importance, or that they were
>> related by blood. I agreed with the second part.
>
>What you've said here sounds interesting, but I can't understand it. Are
>you saying that Rand doesn't care if he and Elayne are close cousins, but
>there is some other reason?
>
>> There were other details about RJ himself that came out. He mentioned
>> the FAQ, and how only 1/3
>> of it is correct. Another 1/3 is completely wrong, and the remaining 1/3
>> is parlty correct, but
>> not complete, even though the FAQ concludes some of these. I think this
>> means that the rasfwr-j
>> regulars can stop flaming anyone who asks questions that are covered in
>> the FAQ; NO, it is NOT an
>> excuse anymore that you have discussed everything their is too discuss;
>> according to RJ, 2/3 of
>> your holy FAQ needs rewriting and revising.
>
>We already knew that, he's said it on several occasions in past years.
>
>--
>-Mark Erikson, 17 year old virgin
>asha...@geocities.com
>http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/3730/
>'If you have any questions, stick 'em up your ass'
>-Bob Cock
>
>
>
Mister C
>I'm sorry--perhaps I missed the post containing this info--but did anybody
>BOTHER to ask RJ when the next Wheel of Time book would be released at any
>of his Australian appearances?!?!? Or did A Path of Daggers just now get
>released Down Under, and everybody's focused on that?
welcome to our monkey house.
yes, someone BOTHERED to ask. just read chucky's FAQ, it's all there
somewhere. jeese, if you bother to post into this newsgroup, perhaps
you should take the time to read the FAQ, hmm? then you won't be
asking silly questions about whent he next book comes out.
and, unfortunately, australia isn't THAT far behind... we actually get
a lot of things a few hours before the unfortunate americans.
something to do with the timezones...
*giggle*
this is fun. maybe we should crosspost some more, huh?
Jeff Huo
First of all, it helps greatly if you clip the length
of the prior attributes (i.e., don't quote the whole
previous article); just the relevant bits. Or summarize.
Having to scroll through huge lengths of quoted
text makes it more difficult to find the new bits
--and when you are short of time, if it takes too
long to read an article or to figure out what has
been written, often times I'll just give up and not
read it. After a while, I'll just give up on the author
all-together --I mean, there's thousands of articles,
hundreds of authors, I've only got the half-hour
every few days while I'm eating breakfast/dinner
in front of my machine; if an author's article gives
me too much trouble, I'll move to someone else
who gives me less. (Heck, I 've got too little time
even to waste in kill-filing, then digging author
back out the once in a while he/she might have
said something useful....)
Now you're free to ignore that advice, but
we'll get to ignoring in a moment.
Anyway, moving right along:
Sastan wrote:
> Not really. This is not a science. This is based on a ficticious world,
> and there is an author of this world who can choose what is right and
> what is not.
> The posters at rasfwr-j, or afr-j, or any of the dozens of online
> message boards have no official recognition which allows them to be the
> "scientists".
Ever thought about where the "official recognition" that
makes someone a scientist comes from? This is an honest
question, not meant as a condenscending one. I mean,
it's not like the days of the monarchy, where the monarch
appointed people to a Royal Academy and in such a
way gained standing as a scientist. Some people say
that earning a Ph.D. gives you official recognition.
But not all Ph.D.'s are created equal. In fact, even in
a profession like Medicine, where an explicit, very high
minimum level of competency is demanded of anyone
with said degree, not all M.D.'s are created equal.
There are 120+ US medical schools. However, the
faculty of those medical schools come from virtually
only about two dozen of those schools --and a
significant fraction from a very small subset of
even those. Why?
Respect.
Respect and reputation. Your ability to operate in
medicine --to get grant money, to get patients, heck,
to get hired or licensed-- rests in large part on the
general consensus of how everyone else in the field
feels how good you are. I.e., how much respect they
have for the institution from which you got your
degree. Or if you try to publish an article, how much
respect they have for you as a researcher. When
someone submits an article to a journal, the article
is checked on it's own logical self-consistency, on
it's significance, on the authors reputation --basically,
said journal has it's own version of Novak's FAQ
and grades the article accordingly. Actually checking
whether said facts are true is well beyond the ability
of the reviewers --it took the original scientists years
to get the data; to replicate the experiments would at
least take the same amount of time. So the decision
to print the article rests on faith on the authors reputation
and the internal consistency of the presented material.
Of course, if after the article is published noone can
replicate the data, then your reputation drops accordingly.
The -next- time you want to publish, you'll be kill-filed
by the reviewers. If on the other hand people find your
article informative and useful, your reputation goes up.
The next time you write, more people notice. Etc.
A newsgroup dealing with a ficticious universe is even
-better- than science, in so far as the entire sum of
known knowledge is finite and it is possible to have
an exhaustive analysis of all known facts. Every word.
But the same rules with regards to respect still apply.
A newsgroup works the same way as a journal or a
society. Anybody can join the American Academy of
Hemostasis, for example. But if you want to publish
in it's journals, if you want to present in the
conferences, if you want to be noticed, you've got to
follow the local rules. Our academy has it's own version
of Novak's FAQ (and Pam's, for that matter) and you
ignore it at your peril. (In fact, given the extremely high
number of graduate students on this newsgroup, I
wouldn't be at all surprised if the idea for the twin
FAQ's came from real-world examples.) Our academy
has those rules because, well, the members currently
in it said so. You're free to ignore the rules --but then
we are also free to ignore you. And you don't get far
in science by being ignored. You can have all the
diplomas and data you want --if noone trusts you
or believes you, you're finished. If noone has
respect for what you say, you're finished.
That's the heart of what this is all about. RASFWR-J
is a community of thinkers, much like the AAH or the
American Medical Association or the AFRJ. The majority
of the membership sat down and decided what they
thought would be the ground rules, be it the AMA
Manual of Style or Science's Guidelines for
Submission or Novak's FAQ. You are free to
ignore the local conventions, but then it shouldn't
be surprising that you in turn get ignored. Or flamed.
People want people who give a s**t. Who care.
Joining any group is an act of voluntary will --noone
is forcing you to be here--and so if you are going to
be here, it is greatly appreciated if you at least take
the time to follow the local conventions. I mean, why
do people post in the first place? Why do people
publish in journals? Ever thought about that? (Again,
not a condenscending question, but an honest one.)
There are a few reasons:
1a) Someone has a new idea they would like to discusss, or
1b) Someone thinks an existing idea is wrong, and
2) They want to know what everyone else thinks of it.
I mean, people don't (or, I would hope they don't)
post simply for an ego rush. In both cases, reading
the FAQ is a self-evident step to see if in fact said i
dea is new. At least here on RASFW-J there -is- a
FAQ, and a fairly exhaustive one at that, so that checking
1a and 1b are fairly easy. Far better than just having
someone arbitrarily say "We've seen that one before,
shut the f**k up" we instead say
"It's on section.heading.paragraph." So the first
time someone comes to this group and does 1a or
1b, they are pointed to the FAQ. If they care about
the group, they use it. If they don't care, then that's
certainly their choice to do so --but that tells everyone
else right there that they don't care about the rest of
the people on the group --and you can imagine what
will happen to that individual's respect.
Actually, if you think about it a bit, flaming is actually
nicer than the alternative --simply being ignored and
allowed to flounder somewhere alone.
> All the requirements are is to have read the book. Of course the FAQ's a
> great resource, but that does not bar anyone from bringing up the same
> topics that have been discussed already.
As discussed above, why would someone bring up a
previously discussed topic -unless- you can present
new information that differs from existing? And before
you can do that, you would have to know what existing
is. Hence the dramatic difference in reception between
"Hey, I believe X is true" and "Hey, FAQ at
section.heading.paragraph says X because of Y and
Z, but Y and Z are wrong because of A and B and
therefore X is not true."
> We all find the Taim-Demandred discussion tiring - even annoying. What
> do most of us do? Ignore it and allow them to discuss it with other
> newbies, or anyone else who's currently interested in it.
...except that there are far more potential newbies than
there are experienced hands, and simply allowing that traffic
to grow at will will eventually drown the newsgroup in
newbie threads. If the volume gets too high, it gets too
difficult to pick the stuff you care about out. Think about
it--why do individual news groups exist in the first place?
Taken to an absurd extreme, you could just have -one-
newgroup, and you ignore everything you don't care about.
Reality of course is where each small group of people
segregate themselves off into small subgroups and set
their own ground rules. If you don't like the ground rules,
then don't join. RASFWR-J has fairly explicit ground rules.
ASFJ does not. Thus, different people gravitate accordingly.
If you don't like the local rules, then don't come. If the rules
are too restrictive, then in time one group will dwindle and the
other will grow, every bit as much as a journal's or a
scientists' reputation grows or diminishes over time.
> Having being responsible for the FAQ does not give the right for an
> ego-inflated elite of sycophants to flame others who have not been
> involved in a newsgroup discussion before.
A little like saying being responsible for the production
of the journal Science doesn't give them the right to
arbitrarily decide what constitutes the most important
science of the day or not. If you don't care what the
folks at Science think, fine --but that's a problem in so
far as -everyone else- does. After all, where does the
pecking order in journals come from, anyway? What
makes Science more important than Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences? It all boils down to
-respect-. You either get it from the people from whom
you care about respecting you or you don't. If you don't
care whether people respect you or not, fine --but then
don't be surprised at whatever the consequences may
be. That's the real world.
If you don't like the rules in a journal, don't publish there.
If you think an academy or university's guidelines
are too strict, don't go there. It's all voluntary, after all.
Does that help?
-Jeff
----
Jeff Huo | jeff...@nospam.starfall.com
Fred Van_Keuls
> Ever thought about where the "official recognition" thatmakes someone a
> scientist comes from?
It's a sad fact of modern science that we need such "official recognition".
Einstein published some of his best work from the patent office. I'm not sure
if that would fly today.
> What makes Science more important than Proceedings of the
> National Academy of Sciences? It all boils down to
> -respect-.
I think that circulation comes into play here also.
-Fred *going to check if our library even has the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences*
--
...
Mister C
<vank...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I think that circulation comes into play here also.
circulation is good. such was the case with flouride, guaranteed to do
wonders for your teeth. science said: flouride = good for your teeth,
so bung it in the water.
by educating the masses through a huge campaign, the common consensus
is that flouride is good for your teeth. the historical reasons for
this fact were never based on any scientific methodology, but instead
on the presentation of 'facts' in a nice neat folder, and the
subsequent forcing of these 'facts' onto the masses.
damn well worked for decades too.
you tell people 'that's how it is' for long enough, they'll believe
it.
after all, how do you know the world is round?
it could be a cube. it could be a dimensional inversion, which makes a
moebius strip effect in any direction, but not quite a sphere...
we know it's a speherical shape, because we've seen it all in star
trek.
Nathan Lundblad
Aaron Bergman <aber...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <37D65C2A...@yahoo.com>, Fred Van_Keuls wrote:
>>It's a sad fact of modern science that we need such "official recognition".
>>Einstein published some of his best work from the patent office. I'm not sure
>>if that would fly today.
>It would.
Are you sure, though? Has *any* important theoretical work been done by
'unassociated' people in the last twenty years or so?
Legitimately curious,
--
Nathan Lundblad lund...@alum.calberkeley.org
Aaron Bergman
>
>> Ever thought about where the "official recognition" thatmakes someone a
>> scientist comes from?
>
>It's a sad fact of modern science that we need such "official recognition".
>Einstein published some of his best work from the patent office. I'm not sure
>if that would fly today.
It would.
HTH.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>
Chad R Orzel
>Jeff Huo wrote:
>> Ever thought about where the "official recognition" thatmakes someone a
>> scientist comes from?
>It's a sad fact of modern science that we need such "official recognition".
>Einstein published some of his best work from the patent office. I'm not sure
>if that would fly today.
If someone working as a patent clerk produces a paper of the same quality
as Einstein's best work, it'll get accepted.
The problem is that it's become well-nigh impossible for a patent clerk
to do cutting-edge physics research in his spare moments. The amount of
background knowledge required to do top-notch physics research today is
too great for the average hobbyist. Not only do you need to learn most of
what Einstein knew, you need to learn all of what _he_ did, and all about
quantum mechanics, and probably QED as well. Which is a daunting amount
of material, and very few people have the resources to assimilate it all
as part of a career, let alone on an evenings-and-weekends basis.
Amateur contributions are still important in some other fields, though.
Some significant number of comets and asteroids have been identified by
hobbyists, and it wouldn't surprise me if some very good observational
biology (finding new species, new behaviors in existing species, etc.)
were done by people with day jobs in other fields.
>> What makes Science more important than Proceedings of the
>> National Academy of Sciences? It all boils down to
>> -respect-.
>
>I think that circulation comes into play here also.
IIRC, based on the one issue I've ever looked at, the National Academy
doesn't really publish research articles. They're more in the review
article business, which is useful, but not as important to day-to-day
research science.
Later,
OilCan
(The National Academy does have a Way Kewl building in DC, though, and
they put on a nice cocktail party/ reception when the occasion arises...)
Aaron Bergman
>In article <slrn7td4v7....@tree0.Stanford.EDU>,
>Aaron Bergman <aber...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>>>Einstein published some of his best work from the patent office. I'm not sure
>>>if that would fly today.
>
>
>Are you sure, though? Has *any* important theoretical work been done by
>'unassociated' people in the last twenty years or so?
I don't know about that, but Einstein certainly wasn't
unassociated in any way that I know of.
Colen 'Not Colin' McAlister
<lund...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> got up to write:
>Has *any* important theoretical work been done by
>'unassociated' people in the last twenty years or so?
I would doubt it... all the 'easy' stuff has been done already. It's
like computer games - 10 years ago you could program something from
scratch in your bedroom with a 286; try doing that nowadays and see how
far you get.
--
Colen 'Not Colin' McAlister <brother...@yahoo.com>
Keeper of the Holy Skrills <http://www.40k.org/skrillHQ/>
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time
Chad R Orzel
>>>It's a sad fact of modern science that we need such "official recognition".
>>>Einstein published some of his best work from the patent office. I'm not sure
>>>if that would fly today.
>> It would.
>How much experience with the peer review process have you had? I suppose that
>theorists may have an easier time than experimentalists, but it can be rough.
It's not a perfect process, that's for sure, but it's the best we've got.
And even though the S/N of the Physical Review family has been dropping
like a stone for nigh on ten years, I'll wager there's more bad stuff
kept out for cause than good work torpedoed by personal vendettas. If
nothing else, you're allowed to request that certain people _not_ referee
your paper...
>Various cliques and mafias are definately present. Well connected and respected
>people can get anything published while outsiders can easily be buried.
This is claimed a lot, but usually by crackpots.
I've watched some small two-digit number of papers go through the review
process, and in only one of those cases was a paper unjustly barred from
a journal it should've been in. And there it was more a matter of the
short-sighted (and wholly unexpected) application of a legitimate review
criterion than a personal vendetta.
None of this was especially controversial, I'll grant, but if personal
politics were as prevalent as many would have us believe, you'd think
there'd be some sign of that. I know of only one case where a
semi-credible claim has been made that papers are being shot down for
ideological reasons, but I've only heard biased reports on that work, and
thus wouldn't stake my life on it. Thee's probably more to that story
than either side is letting on.
Radically
>new ideas are the most difficult to publish in peer reviewed journals where
>experts will use their power and influence to destroy papers that challenge
>their own well-established positions.
Of course, I've also heard it alleged that _Science_ and _Nature_ are not
quite so concerned about the strict accuracy of the work they publish,
provided it's novel and controversial...
There are a million journals out there, and, believe it or not, it's a
competitive market. If there's merit to an idea, it _will_ see print, and
there's no conspiracy of elder scientists pervasive and persuasive enough
to stop it.
Again, it's not a perfect process, but it's the best we're likely to get.
And it does work, to a much better degree than the dozens of people
mailing their Theory of Everything to every Nobel laureate in the book
would have you believe.
Later,
OilCan
Robert Pfeifer
<je...@nospam.starfall.com> write:
<snip all>
}Does that help?
This is Sastan you're talking to, so probably no.
Rob
--
Reality v1.1: 15 totally new emotions! 7 extra laws of physics! 3 new ways to
achieve transcendence! Now with "Deja Vu" bug fixed and multiplayer support
for up to 8 billion people...
Robert Pfeifer E-mail: <rp @ i.am> WWW: http://i.am/the.god.of.hellfire
Jim Mansfield
Aaron Bergman <aber...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <37D65C2A...@yahoo.com>, Fred Van_Keuls wrote:
>>
>>> Ever thought about where the "official recognition" thatmakes someone a
>>> scientist comes from?
>>
>>It's a sad fact of modern science that we need such "official recognition".
>>Einstein published some of his best work from the patent office. I'm not sure
>>if that would fly today.
>
>It would.
Definately agreed about the patent office part. Official recognition in
terms of the recognition of the quality (or lack thereof) of one's
research is still important no matter where one does the research.
In fact, the Canadian Medical Research Council (sort of like the NIH in
the US of A) is soon to be dropping the requirement that applicants for
research grants have either a Ph.D. or an M.D. They figure that if the
application can stand against its peers in the review process, then
let it.
-Jim
--
Jim Mansfield Internet: Jim.Ma...@nrc.ca
National Research Council of Canada Phone: (204) 984-5191
Institute for Biodiagnostics Fax: (204) 984-5472
http://www.ibd.nrc.ca/~mansfield/
Jim Mansfield
[sni]
>>> What makes Science more important than Proceedings of the
>>> National Academy of Sciences? It all boils down to
>>> -respect-.
I don't get the 'respect' part. PNAC is more respected but has a
lower impact factor than Science. It depends on the article. But
if it is _really_ important, many people will get a bunch of
papers on the same theme published in a whole range of journals.
>>I think that circulation comes into play here also.
Definately.
>IIRC, based on the one issue I've ever looked at, the National Academy
>doesn't really publish research articles. They're more in the review
>article business, which is useful, but not as important to day-to-day
>research science.
They do both, but only take what they consider to be important articles.
Plus, in order to even have your paper looked at, it needs to be
sponsored and submitted by a member of the NAS. They won't accept
straight submission.
>(The National Academy does have a Way Kewl building in DC, though, and
>they put on a nice cocktail party/ reception when the occasion arises...)
*grin*
Jasper Janssen
>Dear Sastan:
As much as I would applaud lecturing newbies on netiquette..
Don't bother with this one.
Dejanews, search for "Student", no more will I say.
Jasper
Sastan
"Brian T. Lindstrom" <Brian.L...@Ericsson.com> wrote:
> Sastan wrote:
> >
> > In article <7qrj1k$ju0$1...@demeter.omen.net.au>,
> > "St. Chucky the Chunderous" <hat...@omen.net.au> wrote:
> > > John S. Novak, III wrote in message ...
>
>
> > > >Fine.
> > > >You do that.
> > > >I won't.
> > > >
> > > >The reason the damn thing was written in the first place is
because
> > > >answering the same tired old question about Tigraine, or about
the
> > > >black cords seen about the male Forsaken, or whatever, just gets
> > > >Fucking Boring.
> > >
> > > Then don't answer it. You don't have to get involved in every
thread.
> > > Sheesh.
> >
not
> > the !@#$ing owner/manager of this or any other newsgroup.
> >
>
> time should realize that Novak DOESN'T get involved in very many
> threads.
> Quit asking the man to do what he already does.
read this again:
> > > >is because answering the same tired old question
That was JN. That was _his_ justification, he was referring to himself.
So if you want to blame anyone ("Quit asking the man to do what he
already does.") you can tell JN that his point is worng.
Or even if he wasn't, our point still stands. If anyone doesn't like a
thread they can ignore it. Do I jump into all of his threads everytime
he posts off-topic (ie. always) and complain or flame? No. Similarly,
all he has to do is ignore threads that repeat discussions.
Jeff Huo
> It's not a perfect process, that's for sure, but it's the best we've got.
> And even though the S/N of the Physical Review family has been dropping
> like a stone for nigh on ten years, I'll wager there's more bad stuff
> kept out for cause than good work torpedoed by personal vendettas. If
> nothing else, you're allowed to request that certain people _not_ referee
> your paper...
Dang useful clause that is --when our lab published our most
recent article in Science, we actually were allowed to -suggest-
reviewers in addition to listing those we didn't want (especially
since we were disproving the work of several of those groups).
BTW, I really like the two-step review process that Science
uses --a quick initial review by their editor to see if your paper
is even in the ballpark for something Science would consider
(about a week) followed by the usual formal review process.
Even with that, we went from manuscript submition to set
date for publication in three months, which is almost 1/2
the time for most journals.
> >Various cliques and mafias are definately present.Well connected and respected
> >people can get anything published while outsiders can easily be buried.
[snip Chad's disagreement]
I would, based on my limited experience to date, agree with
Chad. My advisor, on his service on one of the NIH Study
Sections (the folks that screen all the grant proposals submitted
to NIH for funding --I imagine NSF works the same way)
routinely saw grant proposals from even Nobel Prize winners
turned down --and turned down in not-even-close-to-funding
assessment fashions. Much of it may have to do with biomed
not usually having the same emotional charge as might be seen
in other areas of academia, like social policy, for example.
> Radically
> >new ideas are the most difficult to publish in peer reviewed journals where
> >experts will use their power and influence to destroy papers that challenge
> >their own well-established positions.
>
> Of course, I've also heard it alleged that _Science_ and _Nature_ are not
> quite so concerned about the strict accuracy of the work they publish,
> provided it's novel and controversial...
That might be true --one thing I've noticed is that Nature is
a lot looser in their requirements for explanation of procedure
(which is absolutely critical to trying to replicate results) than
Science or Cell. Again, darwinianism at work --the reputation
of Nature in biomed circles suffers somewhat from this
problem, and if they don't fix it soon they may find themselves
relegated to third-place in prestige here in biomed.
-Jeff
----
Jeff Huo | je...@nospam.starfall.com
Sastan
> Now you're free to ignore that advice, but
> we'll get to ignoring in a moment.
you won't really have to worry about that; I don't post very often now.
> Anyway, moving right along:
>
> Sastan wrote:
>
> > Not really. This is not a science. This is based on a ficticious
world,
> > and there is an author of this world who can choose what is right
and
> > what is not.
> > The posters at rasfwr-j, or afr-j, or any of the dozens of online
> > message boards have no official recognition which allows them to be
the
> > "scientists".
>
> Ever thought about where the "official recognition" that
> makes someone a scientist comes from? This is an honest
> question, not meant as a condenscending one.
> Respect.
>
> Respect and reputation. Your ability to operate in
> medicine --to get grant money, to get patients, heck,
> to get hired or licensed-- rests in large part on the
> general consensus of how everyone else in the field
> feels how good you are.
In this case the official recognition comes from Robert Jordan, or those
who have been legally associated with him. That is how this scenario
differs from that of science.
In science there is no Creator to help out, no one person to verify
scientific findings and theories. Robert Jordan is the person who _can_
perform this function. He and anyone who he gives recognition to (eg.
Teresa Patterson) has this official recognition.
> A newsgroup dealing with a ficticious universe is even
> -better- than science, in so far as the entire sum of
> known knowledge is finite and it is possible to have
> an exhaustive analysis of all known facts. Every word.
> But the same rules with regards to respect still apply.
I disagree, and the reasons are given so in my above paragraph.
> A newsgroup works the same way as a journal or a
> society. Anybody can join the American Academy of
> Hemostasis, for example. But if you want to publish
> in it's journals, if you want to present in the
> conferences, if you want to be noticed, you've got to
> follow the local rules.
A society has been founded by people, with rules that must be followed,
otherwise you get kicked out. The case is not so of newgroups.
In this particular case (rasfwr-j) a small group of people who have been
here for a while have decided on their own that they can make up the
rules. They in no way have any "official recognition" for running this
newgroup.
> we are also free to ignore you. And you don't get far
> in science by being ignored. You can have all the
> diplomas and data you want --if noone trusts you
> or believes you, you're finished. If noone has
> respect for what you say, you're finished.
this is where your theory goes down the drain. As I said before, most of
the rasfwr-j regulars represent a small proportion of readers/posters in
this ng. They all hate me, and have supposedly kill-filed me. And you
know what? I'm glad of it. In fact I spent my time since the beginning
(1.5-2 years ago) to try and get them to do so.
The reason being that they rarely post on-topic. With these small few
ignoring me, it means that I can post without fear of the topic going
off-topic, which is what invariably happens when they choose to join
anyone's thread.
> That's the heart of what this is all about. RASFWR-J
> is a community of thinkers, much like the AAH or the
> American Medical Association or the AFRJ.
Agreed.
The majority
> of the membership sat down and decided what they
> thought would be the ground rules, be it the AMA
> Manual of Style or Science's Guidelines for
> Submission or Novak's FAQ.
This is where I disagree. Do you think it was the majority? Most people
aren't interested in what they (Novak and co. (I'll call is NAC from
now on)) do. If they suggest something, do you think they'll bother
rejecting it?
You are free to
> ignore the local conventions, but then it shouldn't
> be surprising that you in turn get ignored. Or flamed.
> People want people who give a s**t. Who care.
> Joining any group is an act of voluntary will --noone
> is forcing you to be here--and so if you are going to
> be here, it is greatly appreciated if you at least take
> the time to follow the local conventions.
I agree that every ng has their own local customs, but there are also
broader rules that apply. Take the example of a country. It has rules at
the Federal, State and Local. However, within specific localities you
have a sub-culture. These are not legally bounding in any way. If they
contradict the law, then anyone should feel not to follow the culture.
The customs that NAC follow/create has very little relevance to the
actual purpose of the ng, and this against general USENET guidelines.
I mean, why
> do people post in the first place? Why do people
> publish in journals? Ever thought about that? (Again,
> not a condenscending question, but an honest one.)
> There are a few reasons:
>
> 1a) Someone has a new idea they would like to discusss, or
> 1b) Someone thinks an existing idea is wrong, and
> 2) They want to know what everyone else thinks of it.
>
That's fine.
In both cases, reading
> the FAQ is a self-evident step to see if in fact said i
> dea is new. At least here on RASFW-J there -is- a
> FAQ, and a fairly exhaustive one at that, so that checking
> 1a and 1b are fairly easy. Far better than just having
> someone arbitrarily say "We've seen that one before,
> shut the f**k up" we instead say
> "It's on section.heading.paragraph." So the first
> time someone comes to this group and does 1a or
> 1b, they are pointed to the FAQ.
That has never been the point. FAQ pointers are great. I encourage them.
The point is that so many people get flamed (and/or FAQ pointer) by NAC
for bringing up old topics. Don't bother disgreeing with statement since
all you have to do is visit afr-j to find many of these victims.
> Actually, if you think about it a bit, flaming is actually
> nicer than the alternative --simply being ignored and
> allowed to flounder somewhere alone.
I disagree. Almost never is a newbie ignored. Again, look at afr-j.
Nobody gets flamed (or at least, very rarely). Everyone is friendly. You
want to discuss Taim-Demandred? Go ahead, whos stopping you?
> As discussed above, why would someone bring up a
> previously discussed topic -unless- you can present
> new information that differs from existing? And before
> you can do that, you would have to know what existing
> is. Hence the dramatic difference in reception between
> "Hey, I believe X is true" and "Hey, FAQ at
> section.heading.paragraph says X because of Y and
> Z, but Y and Z are wrong because of A and B and
> therefore X is not true."
Because people are looking for new takes on an issue. If you present an
old issue in a general way, people are going to look at it from all
sides. There's a chance there'll be something new. They want
_interaction_.
> > We all find the Taim-Demandred discussion tiring - even annoying.
What
> > do most of us do? Ignore it and allow them to discuss it with other
> > newbies, or anyone else who's currently interested in it.
If you don't like the ground rules,
> then don't join. RASFWR-J has fairly explicit ground rules.
> ASFJ does not. Thus, different people gravitate accordingly.
> If you don't like the local rules, then don't come. If the rules
> are too restrictive, then in time one group will dwindle and the
> other will grow, every bit as much as a journal's or a
> scientists' reputation grows or diminishes over time.
Again lets look at the country analogy. The sub-culture is not in sync
with the law. Why should anyone have to move just because a particular
culture is restrictive. Many people do actually move: to afr-j, where
they can safely post. What you're basically saying is that rasfwr-j jave
full control of the ng and can do whatever they want. And they can, but
they have no authority to do so.
> If you don't like the rules in a journal, don't publish there.
> If you think an academy or university's guidelines
> are too strict, don't go there. It's all voluntary, after all.
Again, this analogy is flawed because NAC are not on the same level of
an academy or university. If TOR had a BB which had the same rules that
NAC have made, then they apply. this is not and has never been the case
here. The very nature of ng's differ radically from that of a journal.
And let's return to the original point: NAC should not stifle (ie.
flame) other posters when they want to discuss something that NAC are
tired of.
I would think that you would, since you appear to be a member of the
Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech (nice page).
Jasper Janssen
>Papers that make minor changes or discoveries that
>don't threaten anyone are the easiest to publish. Amazingly, science continues to
>advance nevertheless.
That's because the vast majority of scientific advances nowadays
happen in small steps, not giant leaps.
Jasper
Jasper Janssen
>In article <37D62B32...@nospam.starfall.com>,
> Jeff Huo <je...@nospam.starfall.com> wrote:
>you won't really have to worry about that; I don't post very often now.
Given what you say below, that's a good thing.
>In science there is no Creator to help out,
Dammit, S, that's another thread.
>this is where your theory goes down the drain. As I said before, most of
>the rasfwr-j regulars represent a small proportion of readers/posters in
>this ng. They all hate me, and have supposedly kill-filed me. And you
>know what? I'm glad of it. In fact I spent my time since the beginning
>(1.5-2 years ago) to try and get them to do so.
>The reason being that they rarely post on-topic. With these small few
>ignoring me, it means that I can post without fear of the topic going
>off-topic, which is what invariably happens when they choose to join
>anyone's thread.
Ya know what, Sastan? You're seriously fucked up, even when you're not
trying.
If you're so afraid of off-topic thread drift, what on earth is
stopping you from killfiling the regulars, instead of trying to get
them to killfile you? BTW, do you use "Excession" as a pseudonym by
any chance?
Jasper
Fred Van_Keuls
> It's not a perfect process, that's for sure, but it's the best we've got.
> And even though the S/N of the Physical Review family has been dropping
> like a stone for nigh on ten years, I'll wager there's more bad stuff
> kept out for cause than good work torpedoed by personal vendettas.
I didn't mean to imply that it is all bad. The physics community is probably as
close to a meritocracy as humans have devised. But one can't ignore that
significant sociological factors enter into judging ideas and people.
> >Various cliques and mafias are definately present. Well connected and respected
> >people can get anything published while outsiders can easily be buried.
>
> This is claimed a lot, but usually by crackpots.
> I've watched some small two-digit number of papers go through the review
> process, and in only one of those cases was a paper unjustly barred from
> a journal it should've been in. And there it was more a matter of the
> short-sighted (and wholly unexpected) application of a legitimate review
> criterion than a personal vendetta.
Some areas are worse than others. The first five or so years of HTS were especially
brutal. Many of the best experimental papers couldn't make it into PRL because of
savage reviewing. They all got published, of course, in places like Solid State
Communications.
> None of this was especially controversial, I'll grant, but if personal
> politics were as prevalent as many would have us believe, you'd think
> there'd be some sign of that. I know of only one case where a
> semi-credible claim has been made that papers are being shot down for
> ideological reasons, but I've only heard biased reports on that work, and
> thus wouldn't stake my life on it. Thee's probably more to that story
> than either side is letting on.
Try publishing something that implies that most of the previous experts in the field
have overlooked something or could have analyzed their data better. You will be
amazed at the inventive reasons that reviewers come up with not to publish your
paper. I've even seen a purely experimental paper given a negative review solely on
the basis that the data didn't agree with a particular theory.
> > Radically new ideas are the most difficult to publish in peer reviewed journals
> >where experts will use their power and influence to destroy papers that challenge
>
> >their own well-established positions.
> There are a million journals out there, and, believe it or not, it's a
> competitive market. If there's merit to an idea, it _will_ see print, and
> there's no conspiracy of elder scientists pervasive and persuasive enough
> to stop it.
A million? (I feel good if I keep up with a half-dozen journals.) Perhaps you are
right that an idea will see print in some obscure journal. It may be only be
ignored or ridiculed there. I'm no conspiracy paranoid, but I have less confidence
in the fairness of the review system, especially in dealing with ideas from
non-traditional sources and ideas which challenge experts in the field.
-Fred
--
...
Carlton Jenke
>
> Jeff Huo <je...@nospam.starfall.com> wrote:
<snip other stuff>
> > As discussed above, why would someone bring up a
> > previously discussed topic -unless- you can present
> > new information that differs from existing? And before
> > you can do that, you would have to know what existing
> > is. Hence the dramatic difference in reception between
> > "Hey, I believe X is true" and "Hey, FAQ at
> > section.heading.paragraph says X because of Y and
> > Z, but Y and Z are wrong because of A and B and
> > therefore X is not true."
>
> Because people are looking for new takes on an issue. If you present an
> old issue in a general way, people are going to look at it from all
> sides. There's a chance there'll be something new. They want
> _interaction_.
>
> > If you don't like the rules in a journal, don't publish there.
> > If you think an academy or university's guidelines
> > are too strict, don't go there. It's all voluntary, after all.
>
> Again, this analogy is flawed because NAC are not on the same level of
> an academy or university. If TOR had a BB which had the same rules that
> NAC have made, then they apply. this is not and has never been the case
> here. The very nature of ng's differ radically from that of a journal.
>
> And let's return to the original point: NAC should not stifle (ie.
> flame) other posters when they want to discuss something that NAC are
> tired of.
>
You know, this arguement reminds me of a passage from _Cryptonomicon_.
The part where Alan and Rudy teach Waterhouse the benefit of learning
the past theories of other scientist/mathmeticians. You build on the
research of those who have gone before, instead of trying to start from
scratch and re-doing everything they've already done. You're free to
disagree, but if someone has already worked on a given area, you look at
their research first.
For instance (warning, stupid example), I come up with a _new_ theory:
"Bela is actually the offspring of Mandarb and Stayer!" If I looked at
the FAQ, I may find where the theory has already been presented, and
others found evidence to either support or disprove this theory. For
instance, someone says that both Mandarb and Stayer are stallions - they
can't have offspring normally. And the fact that Bela is older than the
other two.
Why should I blindly present my theory, and have those who've already
discussed it ignore me? The only result is that I probably will never
see that evidence, and I'll keep believing my theory, even though it can
be proven to be wrong - I just never took the time to look at the
evidence other people found.
If you are just going after interaction, then fine, do it your way; if
you're actually trying to get somewhere with your theories, and figure
things ou, our way works best.
--
Carlton Jenke
Brian T. Lindstrom
>
<snip>
> >
> > Anyone who has read the threads in this newsgroup for ANY amount of
> > time should realize that Novak DOESN'T get involved in very many
> > threads.
> > Quit asking the man to do what he already does.
>
> read this again:
>
> > > > >is because answering the same tired old question
>
> That was JN. That was _his_ justification, he was referring to himself.
> So if you want to blame anyone ("Quit asking the man to do what he
> already does.") you can tell JN that his point is worng.
> Or even if he wasn't, our point still stands. If anyone doesn't like a
> thread they can ignore it. Do I jump into all of his threads everytime
> he posts off-topic (ie. always) and complain or flame? No. Similarly,
> all he has to do is ignore threads that repeat discussions.
>
Which is my point exactly - he does ignore most threads with repeat
discussions.
Chad R Orzel
>Chad R Orzel wrote:
>> It's not a perfect process, that's for sure, but it's the best we've got.
>> And even though the S/N of the Physical Review family has been dropping
>> like a stone for nigh on ten years, I'll wager there's more bad stuff
>> kept out for cause than good work torpedoed by personal vendettas.
>
>I didn't mean to imply that it is all bad. The physics community is probably
>as close to a meritocracy as humans have devised. But one can't ignore that
>significant sociological factors enter into judging ideas and people.
True.
But little purpose is served by overrating the importance of those
sociological factors, as people from Kuhn on down have tended to do.
>> This is claimed a lot, but usually by crackpots.
>> I've watched some small two-digit number of papers go through the review
>> process, and in only one of those cases was a paper unjustly barred from
>> a journal it should've been in. And there it was more a matter of the
>> short-sighted (and wholly unexpected) application of a legitimate review
>> criterion than a personal vendetta.
>
>Some areas are worse than others.
I don't doubt it.
The fact that professional prestige and huge amounts of grant money are
riding on the outcome of the debate is the root cause of the one
semi-credible case I alluded to.
>> None of this was especially controversial, I'll grant, but if personal
>> politics were as prevalent as many would have us believe, you'd think
>> there'd be some sign of that. I know of only one case where a
>> semi-credible claim has been made that papers are being shot down for
>> ideological reasons, but I've only heard biased reports on that work, and
>> thus wouldn't stake my life on it. Thee's probably more to that story
>> than either side is letting on.
>
>Try publishing something that implies that most of the previous experts in the
>field have overlooked something or could have analyzed their data better.
I haven't personally, but I know that my old group did.
As far as I can tell from their accounts of that time, the biggest hurdle
they faced was internal- they wanted to be absolutely sure that they had
incontrovertible proof of what they were claiming before they went
public.
None of them ever mentioned trouble with the review process, though. They
did face widespread skepticism from the select group of colleagues they
showed the preliminary results to, but no more than they faced
internally. As far as I know, though, they had no trouble getting it into
print, largely because they had built such a strong case for their
results.
This is the crucial, and often overlooked step. Before you go public with
something that will rock the whole field, you need to make _damn_ sure
you have all your metaphorical ducks in a row. Particularly if it's a
measurement, as "Oh, it's just a systematic error" is an incredibly easy
out for anyone attempting to dismiss your claims.
>> There are a million journals out there, and, believe it or not, it's a
>> competitive market. If there's merit to an idea, it _will_ see print, and
>> there's no conspiracy of elder scientists pervasive and persuasive enough
>> to stop it.
>
>A million?
It sure seems that way...
(I feel good if I keep up with a half-dozen journals.) Perhaps you are
>right that an idea will see print in some obscure journal. It may be only be
>ignored or ridiculed there.
Maybe.
But if it's good work, and carefully done, it'll find an audience.
After all, as recently as ten years ago, laser cooling papers generally
didn't make it to PRL (The classic papers in the field are mostly from
the Journal of the Optical Society of America, part B). And that work
eventually earned a Nobel...
Later,
OilCan
Sastan
jas...@janssen.dynip.com (Jasper Janssen) wrote:
> Sastan <sas...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> >In article <37D62B32...@nospam.starfall.com>,
> > Jeff Huo <je...@nospam.starfall.com> wrote:
>
>
> >this is where your theory goes down the drain. As I said before, most
of
> >the rasfwr-j regulars represent a small proportion of readers/posters
in
> >this ng. They all hate me, and have supposedly kill-filed me. And you
> >know what? I'm glad of it. In fact I spent my time since the
beginning
> >(1.5-2 years ago) to try and get them to do so.
> >The reason being that they rarely post on-topic. With these small few
> >ignoring me, it means that I can post without fear of the topic going
> >off-topic, which is what invariably happens when they choose to join
> >anyone's thread.
>
> Ya know what, Sastan? You're seriously fucked up, even when you're not
> trying.
>
> If you're so afraid of off-topic thread drift, what on earth is
> stopping you from killfiling the regulars, instead of trying to get
> them to killfile you?
What's stopping me? Look at this example:
================================================================
Me: "Excuse me Mr. Policeman, there's some homosexual couples having
sexual intercourse in that part of the public park"
Policeman: "They've been doing that for two years now. They can do
whatever they damn well want."
Me: "But I find that offensive."
Policeman: "Then ignore it."
Me: "But doesn't what they do flout regulations and-"
Policeman: "hey, I said they've been here a while. That means they can
make up the rules. If you don't like it you can go find another park."
Me: Spluttering "But..but..."
Policeman: "Okay, I had it with you !@#$ing free-thinking commie
bastards. If you don't-"
Me: "This is a public park. I'm following regulations. What's wrong with
criticising those who're breaking them?"
Policeman: "Look, these fine people - you should consider them your gods
- have already experimented all forms of heterosexual sex, and since
there's nothing new for them there, they will spend all their time
engaged in homosexuality."
================================================================
There's nothing stopping me; I ignore them without kill-files. It's like
pollution. You can ignore it, but it's still there.
BTW, do you use "Excession" as a pseudonym by
> any chance?
No, why? Is he/she in this newsgroup?
Sastan
Carlton Jenke <carlto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sastan wrote:
> >
> > Jeff Huo <je...@nospam.starfall.com> wrote:
>
> <snip other stuff>
>
> >
> > And let's return to the original point: NAC should not stifle (ie.
> > flame) other posters when they want to discuss something that NAC
are
> > tired of.
> >
>
You're free to
> disagree, but if someone has already worked on a given area, you look
at
> their research first.
>
>
> Why should I blindly present my theory, and have those who've already
> discussed it ignore me? The only result is that I probably will never
> see that evidence, and I'll keep believing my theory, even though it
can
> be proven to be wrong - I just never took the time to look at the
> evidence other people found.
>
> If you are just going after interaction, then fine, do it your way; if
> you're actually trying to get somewhere with your theories, and figure
> things ou, our way works best.
>
You haven't read the thread properly then. Of course it's a good idea
to read the FAQ, and I applaude FAQ pointers. What I am against are
people who get flamed - even if mildly - for not reading the FAQ and/or
presenting old arguements.
They have every right to do so, since many want to be able to got
through the points with others. It's like going to school/uni and
_learning_, instead of blindly following what others have written.
Sastan
"Brian T. Lindstrom" <Brian.L...@Ericsson.com> wrote:
How is that your point? Novak says he's tired of replying to the same
topic-threads repeatedly as his justification for the flames against
those who start such threads.
So you're defending his right to flame people if he's to lazy to reply
to their actual topic? After all, flaming must be easier than
discussion.
Mark Ferguson
BPRice wrote:
>
> I'm sorry--perhaps I missed the post containing this info--but did anybody
> BOTHER to ask RJ when the next Wheel of Time book would be released at any
> of his Australian appearances?!?!? Or did A Path of Daggers just now get
> released Down Under, and everybody's focused on that?
>
[snip]
*chuckle* Down Under? PoD in _paperback_ is already released there; it's
not due here until Christmas. As for when book 9 is coming, yes, RJ said
he expects to have it done by May 2000.
Leah and Jean-Noel
Fenske <bfe...@marz.com> wrote in message
news:npCz3.3801$S4.17...@typhoon.stlnet.com...
>
> Carlton Jenke <carlto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:37CE9B64...@yahoo.com...
> > So what's wrong with showing them where our point of view has been
> > recorded? That's all the FAQ is, our collective point of view. If that's
> > what you want to see, its actually easier to look at the FAQ.
>
> But everything in the FAQ is not everyone's point of view. That's what
> people come here for, differing points of view.
>
> If you totally feel the need to direct someone to the FAQ, people should
at
> least have the courtesy to address the subject in question with their own
> words first and then say something like, "And if you want to see where
these
> points are written down and maybe see some others on other things go to
the
> FAQ." Answering every question on an old subject that you think is
finished
> with "Read the FAQ" is rude and just pisses people off because those new
> people can feel that you think they aren't worthy of actually being spoken
> to.
>
> Fenske
**Leah dulurks for the moment to put her opinion into the pot***
I have been reading and participatiing in this group for about 1.5 years
now. I think that everyone here has a point. I don't usually post here
anymore because of exactly what has been goin on in this group recently.
People act like imbeciles, are rude where there is no need to be and
respond to honest questions with responses that are just rude even if
justified.
Afterall, it gets beyond boring into frustrating when ever month or week or
whatever, we have to re-hash the same ol' once again for the thousandth once
again. Do you get my meaning? But at the same time I understand that
people don't like to be dismissed either .
What I do now is I just skim past all the juvenile crap and simply don't
respond to utter stupidity or topics that I just can't bear any more. When
I find something worth responding to, such as this I do and I *try* to at
least be polite and have my thought somewhat thought out...
So, If I may suggest, why don't we go back to the way we used to be and
stop all the name calling, idiocy and just ignore the topics that are simply
beyond boring to us. I am sure there is a big enough readership that there
will always be someone interested in old topics even if others are not...
Perhaps the newbies will respect us too an at least read the FAQ so we are
at least all on a level playing field as that is the courteous thing to
do...
Ciao all
Leah>
Leah and Jean-Noel
Sastan <sas...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7r9qot$fif$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Hi Novak, nice to read you again ! Flaming isn't any easier than
discussion, but it can be more fun after answering the same questions once a
month for 2 years... It gets boring, then frustrating then angering...
Usually because newbies won't take the time just to read the FAQ so we can
all just have some common ground to discuss new things or debate with new
emphasis on old topics and pehaps discover something new...
Leah