Weekly posting summary
Peter H. Coffin
posts kbytes name address
25 55.3 % per...@gmail.com
25 40.1 erithromycin erithr...@ananzi.co.za
15 28.7 Peter H. Coffin hel...@ninehells.com
10 28.8 Hoots ratt...@yahoo.com
8 56.5 whisky-dave whisk...@final.front.ear
8 47.5 H Duffy hester...@nospam.hotmail.com
7 14.0 coyote n...@spam.thx
7 11.6 Jennie Kermode "Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.u
6 20.1 Will oneb...@hotmail.com
4 8.7 MoonShadow bluemoon...@gmail.com
4 8.6 NightMist night...@gmail.com
4 7.2 cate...@my-deja.com cate...@my-deja.com
4 5.8 Edward Scissorhands Edw...@dmc12.demon.co.uk
3 8.1 Joseph Brenner do...@kzsu.stanford.edu
3 7.0 c_death death+...@perkigoth.com
3 6.4 Wraithlady wrait...@yahoo.co.uk
3 6.2 Fnord Prefect Fnord fnord...@yahoo.com
3 6.0 Kay Happy_...@hotmail.com
3 4.7 Dag dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com
3 4.7 Rob dbr...@hotmail.co.uk
--- -----
148 376.0 Total for top 20
Totals for the newsgroup:
66 posters
209 articles
524.0 kbytes
The top 20 accounted for:
30.3% of the posters
70.8% of the articles
71.7% of the bytes
Averages:
3.2 articles / poster
2.5 kbytes / article
7.9 kbytes / poster
26 people posted for the first time this period.
They went on to post 40 articles altogether
The new posters accounted for:
39.4% of the posters
19.1% of the articles
18.1% of the bytes
--
God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
c_death
wrote:
> Top 20 posters for the 7 day period ending Thu Mar 27 05:00:04 GMT 2008.
>
> posts kbytes name address
> 25 40.1 erithromycin erithromy...@ananzi.co.za
> 15 28.7 Peter H. Coffin hell...@ninehells.com
> 10 28.8 Hoots ratty_...@yahoo.com
> 8 56.5 whisky-dave whisky-d...@final.front.ear
> 8 47.5 H Duffy hester_du...@nospam.hotmail.com
> 7 14.0 coyote n...@spam.thx
> 7 11.6 Jennie Kermode "Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.u
> 4 8.7 MoonShadow bluemoon.shad...@gmail.com
> 4 8.6 NightMist nightmi...@gmail.com
> 4 7.2 cater...@my-deja.com cater...@my-deja.com
> 4 5.8 Edward Scissorhands Edwa...@dmc12.demon.co.uk
> 3 8.1 Joseph Brenner d...@kzsu.stanford.edu
> 3 7.0 c_death death+goo...@perkigoth.com
> 3 6.4 Wraithlady wraithl...@yahoo.co.uk
> 3 6.2 Fnord Prefect Fnord fnordik...@yahoo.com
> 3 6.0 Kay Happy_One...@hotmail.com
> 3 4.7 Dag dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com
> 3 4.7 Rob dbri...@hotmail.co.uk
> --- -----
> 148 376.0 Total for top 20
>
> Totals for the newsgroup:
> 66 posters
> 209 articles
> 524.0 kbytes
>
> The top 20 accounted for:
> 30.3% of the posters
> 70.8% of the articles
> 71.7% of the bytes
>
> Averages:
> 3.2 articles / poster
> 2.5 kbytes / article
> 7.9 kbytes / poster
>
> 26 people posted for the first time this period.
> They went on to post 40 articles altogether
>
> The new posters accounted for:
> 39.4% of the posters
> 19.1% of the articles
> 18.1% of the bytes
>
> --
> God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
wow, I made it into the list with a full 3, THREE, posts!
bwahahaha.
Peter H. Coffin
> wow, I made it into the list with a full 3, THREE, posts!
>
> bwahahaha.
And not even the bottom of the threes, either.
--
Or the "If you have the right to say whatever you want, then I have that
equal right to say that you're a worthless goat-fucker who should do the
world a favor by committing suicide with an electric wool shearer."
-- Charles the Gruamach, in a.g
Blackheart
> wow, I made it into the list with a full 3, THREE, posts!
>
> bwahahaha.-
it's even slower when this NG isn't cluttered up by a bunch of
jackasses crossposting in because Miss Batshiat Crazy migrated...
Jennie Kermode
> it's even slower when this NG isn't cluttered up by a bunch of
> jackasses crossposting in because Miss Batshiat Crazy migrated...
Not where real content is concerned. There are a lot of us who
can't be bothered trying to shout over the noise. Not that these trolls
are a particular problem, keeping to their own threads as they do - a
lot less trouble than some recent pests.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
Troia
> Top 20 posters for the 7 day period ending Thu Mar 27 05:00:04 GMT 2008.
>
> posts kbytes name address
> 25 55.3 % per...@gmail.com
> 25 40.1 erithromycin erithr...@ananzi.co.za
> 15 28.7 Peter H. Coffin hel...@ninehells.com
> 10 28.8 Hoots ratt...@yahoo.com
> 8 56.5 whisky-dave whisk...@final.front.ear
> 8 47.5 H Duffy hester...@nospam.hotmail.com
> 7 14.0 coyote n...@spam.thx
> 7 11.6 Jennie Kermode "Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.u
> 6 20.1 Will oneb...@hotmail.com
> 4 8.7 MoonShadow bluemoon...@gmail.com
> 4 8.6 NightMist night...@gmail.com
> 4 7.2 cate...@my-deja.com cate...@my-deja.com
> 4 5.8 Edward Scissorhands Edw...@dmc12.demon.co.uk
> 3 8.1 Joseph Brenner do...@kzsu.stanford.edu
> 3 7.0 c_death death+...@perkigoth.com
> 3 6.4 Wraithlady wrait...@yahoo.co.uk
> 3 6.2 Fnord Prefect Fnord fnord...@yahoo.com
> 3 6.0 Kay Happy_...@hotmail.com
> 3 4.7 Dag dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com
> 3 4.7 Rob dbr...@hotmail.co.uk
See what happens when I work too hard???
BTW, over the years I have noticed that around every February (and yes,
I DO know it's March, but it seems to be right around this time of year)
quite a few groups get very slow, though a.g doesn't completely
consistently follow this schedule. But usually about now, someone posts
about the "death of Usenet" and how, especially, discussion newsgroups
are no longer viable because "hardly anybody" posts anymore. The word
"obsolete" comes up.
I see this as an albeit-cyclic parallel to those people who believe that
books -- the ones made of paper & such -- will disappear because you can
get the content in such supposedly-new-and-improved ways now.
And yet, despite the doom-and-gloom predictions, and despite web-boards
and e-books and books-on-tape and instant-messaging ... more books are
sold, and more people are on news servers. Amazon's books business is
thriving, new newsgroups still are created, and although it's a
by-the-skin-of-your-teeth effort sometimes, there are more NSPs than
ever before, and some of them even have customer bases in the
hundreds-of-thousands.
I'm sure I've substantially-enough muddled the topic here to impress a
few people with the fuzziness of my mind.
But I just wanted to say: so here we are. Yes, it's slow, but it will
be so at times. And within the space of a month or two, it will be busy
again.
And frankly, knowing the reason behind the high numbers in Dec 2006 and
Jan 2007, I'd almost prefer it this way.
-- Troia
Oct'avian
> I see this as an albeit-cyclic parallel to those people who believe that
> books -- the ones made of paper & such -- will disappear because you can
> get the content in such supposedly-new-and-improved ways now.
>
> And yet, despite the doom-and-gloom predictions, and despite web-boards
> and e-books and books-on-tape and instant-messaging ... more books are
> sold, and more people are on news servers.
I had a philosophy professor in college who was adamant about the use
of the newly built library building we had on campus being utilzed.
At least once a term he would say things like: "There is this
building, with windows, that has books in it- it's called a library.
The college spent a lot of money making a newer better building, and I
want you to make use of it. The only website I want to see listed as
a reference is the online location of a literary journal or
publication"
And, without fail, there was always at least one newbie who complained
about doing legitimate research for a paper.
~Oct'avian (otherwise known in college as "Monmouth's own barefoot
philosopher")
Blackheart
> by-the-skin-of-your-teeth effort sometimes, there are more NSPs than
> ever before, and some of them even have customer bases in the
> hundreds-of-thousands.
>
>
operations like UseNetServer don't get huge customer bases because
they carry things like alt.gothic...
they have huge customer bases because they offer anonymous all-you-can-
leech access to the binaries groups.
Blackheart
wrote:
yes. but that's philosophy... what can you really do with a philosophy
degree (legitimately) other than teach philosophy?
I added the legitimately in parens because.. well... setting up a
racket as a "spiritual guru", while lucrative, is probably not
legitimate 9 times out of 10...
Jennie Kermode
> yes. but that's philosophy... what can you really do with a philosophy
> degree (legitimately) other than teach philosophy?
A philosophy degree should teach you thinking skills which are
useful in all sorts of areas - politics, business, creative art, etc.
Much as, for instance, a chemistry degree is often seen as one of the
best indications that an individual will be good at management.
Troia
A lovely story, to be sure, but it seems that nowadays even the profs
prefer the on-line stuff (which is pretty danged sad, if you ask me.)
-- Troia
Troia
Well, agreed; I don't think anyone even keeps stats on text groups
anymore, so little of the traffic do they (we) represent these days.
Were we arguing about something? Would you suggest that, since binaries
are where the big business lies, that text group traffic has -not- seen
increases, and that more people than ever before are taking part in text
groups too?
I don't care to deal with the measure-by-comparison standards because I
don't think it's overwhelmingly relevant to the point I was making.
-- Troia
Dag
> On Mar 29, 12:55 am, Troia <troia.leg...@gmail.removethiscom> wrote:
>> I see this as an albeit-cyclic parallel to those people who believe that
>> books -- the ones made of paper & such -- will disappear because you can
>> get the content in such supposedly-new-and-improved ways now.
>>
>> And yet, despite the doom-and-gloom predictions, and despite web-boards
>> and e-books and books-on-tape and instant-messaging ... more books are
>> sold, and more people are on news servers.
>> -- Troia
>
> I had a philosophy professor in college who was adamant about the use
> of the newly built library building we had on campus being utilzed.
> At least once a term he would say things like: "There is this
> building, with windows, that has books in it- it's called a library.
> The college spent a lot of money making a newer better building, and I
> want you to make use of it. The only website I want to see listed as
> a reference is the online location of a literary journal or
> publication"
What is wrong about reading a (chapter from a) book online instead of
waiting 2 weeks for the library to try to get hold of a hard copy? As
much as I am a great fan of both books and libraries and greatly enjoy
using both on a regular basis, I'll be the first to admit they have many
limitations. Most of them connected to the fact that books are physical
objects that can only be at one place at the time and take up space.
I don't think I have done any of my thesis research in an actual library.
At most I have borrowed a few books (after using the web to work out which
books I want and where and in which library they are located), non of
which have been as useful as the stuff I've gotten from the web (much via
databases provided by my university library). There is also a lot of
great stuff written by very clever people that is just up on their
homepages and that hasn't been published in a journal.
Nope, when it comes to research give me the web over a physical building
any day of the week. I'll save the library for when I have time for
idle browsing for my own enjoyment and self education.
Dag
The Sinuous Scintillator of Fascinet
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:46:30 -0700 (PDT), Oct'avian <octav...@silvermoondesigns.org> wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 12:55 am, Troia <troia.leg...@gmail.removethiscom> wrote:
> >> I see this as an albeit-cyclic parallel to those people who believe that
> >> books -- the ones made of paper & such -- will disappear because you can
> >> get the content in such supposedly-new-and-improved ways now.
>
> >> And yet, despite the doom-and-gloom predictions, and despite web-boards
> >> and e-books and books-on-tape and instant-messaging ... more books are
> >> sold, and more people are on news servers.
> >> -- Troia
>
> > I had a philosophy professor in college who was adamant about the use
> > of the newly built library building we had on campus being utilzed.
> > At least once a term he would say things like: "There is this
> > building, with windows, that has books in it- it's called a library.
> > The college spent a lot of money making a newer better building, and I
> > want you to make use of it. The only website I want to see listed as
> > a reference is the online location of a literary journal or
> > publication"
>
> What is wrong about reading a (chapter from a) book online instead of
> waiting 2 weeks for the library to try to get hold of a hard copy?
And how would he know?
If you're referencing a website other than the arXiv, you probably
aren't getting pre-vetted information.
As much as I complain about the uselessness of the literature, even
the arXiv shows you how useful the minor vetting that occurs from
editors and reviewers is.
-F
Dag
> On Apr 1, 10:27 am, Dag <f98d...@dd.chalmers.se> wrote:
>> What is wrong about reading a (chapter from a) book online instead of
>> waiting 2 weeks for the library to try to get hold of a hard copy?
>
> And how would he know?
I guess it all comes down to how you cite your references. Would you
cite it as if you'd read the hard copy or do you cite the web site where
you actually got your copy from. On one hand it probably won't make
much of a difference, on the other hand the online version might have
erratas and updates added. To be honest I'm not quite sure what the
correct answer is.
> If you're referencing a website other than the arXiv, you probably
> aren't getting pre-vetted information.
Well there is pre-vetting by being known. If the person is a name in
his field and has a solid publication record, then I really see little
problem with citing an unpublished draft from that persons home page.
On the other hand I also use plenty of web sites that I don't actually
cite. For example I don't cite Planetmath.org in my thesis, but I still
use it all the time. Based on experience it say it's pre-vetted enough
to at least be worth reading.
Dag
H Duffy
"Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethiscom> wrote in message
news:47f23355$0$17908$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
> Oct'avian wrote:
>> I had a philosophy professor in college who was adamant about the use
>> of the newly built library building we had on campus being utilzed.
>> At least once a term he would say things like: "There is this
>> building, with windows, that has books in it- it's called a library.
>> The college spent a lot of money making a newer better building, and I
>> want you to make use of it. The only website I want to see listed as
>> a reference is the online location of a literary journal or
>> publication"
>
> prefer the on-line stuff (which is pretty danged sad, if you ask me.)
Erm, not universally, by any means; while I'm not a professor in the UK or
US sense, I mark students' assignments,a nd they get marked down if their
references consist of a list of URLs.
H
whisky-dave
"Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethiscom> wrote in message
news:47f23355$0$17908$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>
>
> A lovely story, to be sure, but it seems that nowadays even the profs
> prefer the on-line stuff (which is pretty danged sad, if you ask me.)
Why won't people think of the poor trees, save the trees.
Perhaps the bigger problem is that is far more difficult for the author to
make money from PDFs than a book. I know one of our past academics insisted
that his book should only be available in hard back, which I think is unfare
to the
less well off student.
whisky-dave
"H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:65h312F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> Erm, not universally, by any means; while I'm not a professor in the UK or
> US sense, I mark students' assignments,a nd they get marked down if their
> references consist of a list of URLs.
I'm not sure what they do here but I wouldthink that method is bad practice
and open to abuse, a buy or 'obtain' my book or I'll mark you down isn;t
soemthing I would likoe to see.
whisky-dave
"The Sinuous Scintillator of Fascinet" <fasc...@my-deja.com> wrote in
message
news:a11fa31a-8de6-40ec...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Why should that matter surely the idea for research is that it should not
only be somewhat original on the researchers side, and not just a copy and
paste of someone else's book
vetted or not as that could be plagiarism if the original materail isn't
properly cited.
As much as I complain about the uselessness of the literature, even
the arXiv shows you how useful the minor vetting that occurs from
editors and reviewers is.
Sure but what about your own work rather than just agreeing or disagreeing
with others comments.
Troia
No, that isn't what it implies; it's a matter of actually going to the
library and properly researching.
One obvious problem with using the internet is that the sources are not
always authoritative, as anyone can pretty well publish anything they
want & have it appear credible.
-- Troia
The Sinuous Scintillator of Fascinet
> "The Sinuous Scintillator of Fascinet" <fasci...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> messagenews:a11fa31a-8de6-40ec...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
In my own work, the arguing with editors and reviewers in trying to
cite a reference not in a refereed journal is more trouble than it's
worth.
-F
H Duffy
"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
news:fsvutr$qlk$1@qmul...
>
> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:65h312F...@mid.individual.net...
>> Erm, not universally, by any means; while I'm not a professor in the UK
>> or US sense, I mark students' assignments,a nd they get marked down if
>> their references consist of a list of URLs.
>
> I'm not sure what they do here but I wouldthink that method is bad
> practice
> and open to abuse,
You'd be quite wrong; it's common practice, and not in any way wrong. That's
what Universities have libraries for, y'see.
a buy or 'obtain' my book or I'll mark you down isn;t
> soemthing I would likoe to see.
We don't insist they _buy_ the books, just that they read them. And we give
them access to a library, so they can find books,and read them, free of
cost.
H
The Sinuous Scintillator of Fascinet
> The Sinuous Scintillator of Fascinet wrote:
>
> > On Apr 1, 10:27 am, Dag <f98d...@dd.chalmers.se> wrote:
> >> What is wrong about reading a (chapter from a) book online instead of
> >> waiting 2 weeks for the library to try to get hold of a hard copy?
>
> > And how would he know?
>
> I guess it all comes down to how you cite your references. Would you
> cite it as if you'd read the hard copy or do you cite the web site where
> you actually got your copy from. On one hand it probably won't make
> much of a difference, on the other hand the online version might have
> erratas and updates added. To be honest I'm not quite sure what the
> correct answer is.
>
I expect that the most permanent citation is important.
No one really knows what or if the internet will be in ten years, but
the URLs will probably have changed.
>
> > If you're referencing a website other than the arXiv, you probably
> > aren't getting pre-vetted information.
>
> Well there is pre-vetting by being known. If the person is a name in
> his field and has a solid publication record, then I really see little
> problem with citing an unpublished draft from that persons home page.
>
> On the other hand I also use plenty of web sites that I don't actually
> cite. For example I don't cite Planetmath.org in my thesis, but I still
> use it all the time. Based on experience it say it's pre-vetted enough
> to at least be worth reading.
>
However, in the review process that's taken care of.
Surname, Initial, "Title," to be published
works just was well.
-F
c_death
deja.com> wrote:
>
> I expect that the most permanent citation is important.
>
Last report I did, introduced species to California (I picked Red
headed conure) I cited a few San Francisco Chronicle as well as Contra
Costa Times articles that I read online. (though I did use a library
*computer* to do the research.) But I just didn't cite only the url,
but also the writer, date published name of article, name of paper
etc.
Other than "The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill - A Love Story with
Wings" by Mark Bittner and the documentary done by his now wife, all
my sources had an online presence. even scientific papers.. such as
Miyahi, Cristina Yumi, Matioli, Sergio Russo, Burke, Terry & Wajntal,
Anita (1998). Parrot Evolution and Paleogeographical Events:
Mitochondrial DNA Evidence. Mol. Biol. Evol, 15(5):544-551
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/5/544.pdf (Accessed
10-28-2007)
Peter H. Coffin
posts kbytes name address
21 42.3 Peter H. Coffin hel...@ninehells.com
15 68.1 whisky-dave whisk...@final.front.ear
15 38.6 Troia troia....@gmail.removethiscom
9 51.2 H Duffy hester...@nospam.hotmail.com
8 15.8 Jennie Kermode "Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.u
6 16.0 Dag dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com
6 7.9 oonh ot...@abyss.ninehells.com
5 13.8 c_death death+...@perkigoth.com
5 12.8 Metamorph Meta...@cox.net
4 11.8 The Sinuous Scintillator of fasc...@my-deja.com
4 11.3 Dark Phoenix dark_p...@netw.com
4 6.9 Siobhan ne...@virulent.org
3 10.0 Joseph Brenner do...@kzsu.stanford.edu
3 7.8 `una u...@nettrip.org
3 7.5 kest ke...@spamfree.nettrip.org
3 5.6 Blackheart blackhear...@yahoo.com
2 9.0 Axel ax...@eol.ca
2 6.9 Axel der....@gmail.com
2 6.5 Edward Scissorhands e_sciss...@btconnect.comm
2 5.9 Dag f98...@dd.chalmers.se
--- -----
122 355.8 Total for top 20
Totals for the newsgroup:
61 posters
170 articles
456.4 kbytes
The top 20 accounted for:
32.8% of the posters
71.8% of the articles
78.0% of the bytes
Averages:
2.8 articles / poster
2.7 kbytes / article
7.5 kbytes / poster
26 people posted for the first time this period.
They went on to post 42 articles altogether
The new posters accounted for:
42.6% of the posters
24.7% of the articles
23.2% of the bytes
kest
Honestly, that's a little pathetic. Maybe instead of bothering to try
to hash this convergence stuff out, all twenty of us should go to
Peter's house and eat sushi.
k
Blackheart
> Honestly, that's a little pathetic. Maybe instead of bothering to try
> to hash this convergence stuff out, all twenty of us should go to
> Peter's house and eat sushi.
I'm flattered to be included in that list.. i think..
can't say I care one way or the other about C* unless it's in the
Baltimore area...
Iron Maiden already called dibs on any discretionary income I may have
had this summer...
H Duffy
"kest" <ke...@spamfree.nettrip.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9A74E9FC4D9Ck...@kest.ninehells.com...
> Peter H. Coffin <hel...@othin.ninehells.com> scrawled:
>
>> Top 20 posters for the 7 day period ending Thu Apr 3 05:00:04 GMT
>> 2008.
> to hash this convergence stuff out, all twenty of us should go to
> Peter's house and eat sushi.
I'm all in favour of that plan, except it's a little far for me... post me
some sushi instead?
H
whisky-dave
"Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethiscom> wrote in message
> whisky-dave wrote:
>> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:65h312F...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> Erm, not universally, by any means; while I'm not a professor in the UK
>>> or US sense, I mark students' assignments,a nd they get marked down if
>>> their references consist of a list of URLs.
>>
>> I'm not sure what they do here but I wouldthink that method is bad
>> practice
>> and open to abuse, a buy or 'obtain' my book or I'll mark you down isn;t
>> soemthing I would likoe to see.
>
> No, that isn't what it implies; it's a matter of actually going to the
> library and properly researching.
Do you really have to go to a library to do that ?
I've got some old books at home on the planets, things were believed about
Mars
30 years ago that have since been disproved, such as how they formed.
I'm sure sigmund wrote somethingn about having sex with your mother or
somethign doesn;'t make it true just because it has appear in a book.
> One obvious problem with using the internet is that the sources are not
> always authoritative, as anyone can pretty well publish anything they want
> & have it appear credible.
But isn;t the whole idea of furthering education is to think for yourself
rather than just proving someone elses point of view remmebr that one of the
best selling books in the world is the Bible how authoritive is that ?
And most important should w ebelieve it and therefor believ in heven and
hell etc..
Surely it's not such a bad thing to be able to think for yourself even when
threratened
with death for beign a heathen or justy discagreeing with your boss.
whisky-dave
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> news:fsvutr$qlk$1@qmul...
>>
>> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:65h312F...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Erm, not universally, by any means; while I'm not a professor in the UK
>>> or US sense, I mark students' assignments,a nd they get marked down if
>>> their references consist of a list of URLs.
>>
>> I'm not sure what they do here but I wouldthink that method is bad
>> practice
>> and open to abuse,
>
> You'd be quite wrong; it's common practice, and not in any way wrong.
> That's what Universities have libraries for, y'see.
> a buy or 'obtain' my book or I'll mark you down isn;t
>> soemthing I would likoe to see.
>
> We don't insist they _buy_ the books, just that they read them.
And how will they read them if the don't buy them ?
> And we give them access to a library, so they can find books,and read
> them, free of cost.
we have classses of 100 or more how many books would they library have to
buy from the publishers, and whaty if the book should only be availible in
hard back at Ł80 a copy ?
I've known our library to be short enough of fund not to be able to buy
enough
books for our courses and that's in plain paperback form.
Why shouldn't students have the right to reference on-line publications ?
Jennie Kermode
> I'm all in favour of that plan, except it's a little far for me... post me
> some sushi instead?
I'm with Hester on this, though I'm not convinced that the
sushi would be too tasty after that journey. Who's in charge of the
teleporter project these days?
Peter H. Coffin
> Honestly, that's a little pathetic. Maybe instead of bothering to try
> to hash this convergence stuff out, all twenty of us should go to
> Peter's house and eat sushi.
I'm game. I'm picking up a fresh quarter barrel at noon (it's MAIBOCK
season!), so it should be settled and chilled by 5pm.
--
Liberty, equality, diversity. Pick any two.
Peter H. Coffin
> On 2008-04-03, H Duffy <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm all in favour of that plan, except it's a little far for me... post me
>> some sushi instead?
>
> I'm with Hester on this, though I'm not convinced that the
> sushi would be too tasty after that journey. Who's in charge of the
> teleporter project these days?
It's coming right after the new FAQ. (;
--
56. My Legions of Terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who
cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for
target practice.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
Troia
> "Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethiscom> wrote in message
> news:47f38d92$0$47169$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>> whisky-dave wrote:
>>> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:65h312F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> Erm, not universally, by any means; while I'm not a professor in the UK
>>>> or US sense, I mark students' assignments,a nd they get marked down if
>>>> their references consist of a list of URLs.
>>> I'm not sure what they do here but I wouldthink that method is bad
>>> practice
>>> and open to abuse, a buy or 'obtain' my book or I'll mark you down isn;t
>>> soemthing I would likoe to see.
>> No, that isn't what it implies; it's a matter of actually going to the
>> library and properly researching.
>
> Do you really have to go to a library to do that ?
> I've got some old books at home on the planets, things were believed about Mars
> 30 years ago that have since been disproved, such as how they formed.
> I'm sure sigmund wrote somethingn about having sex with your mother or
> somethign doesn;'t make it true just because it has appear in a book.
Would you give a student a good grade on a paper that made complete
sense but was based on sources all <x> years old that had since been
disproven?
For that matter, would you give a student a good grade on a paper about,
say, evolution or the formation of the earth, who based their writing &
conclusions on the Bible and other similar sources?
And don't academics generally look for sources that have been vetted in
one way or another, which is generally impossible on the internet except
for the sites which represent print publications and contain
similarly-vetted articles?
>
>
>> One obvious problem with using the internet is that the sources are not
>> always authoritative, as anyone can pretty well publish anything they want
>> & have it appear credible.
> But isn;t the whole idea of furthering education is to think for yourself
> rather than just proving someone elses point of view remmebr that one of the
> best selling books in the world is the Bible how authoritive is that ?
> And most important should w ebelieve it and therefor believ in heven and
> hell etc..
> Surely it's not such a bad thing to be able to think for yourself even when
> threratened
> with death for beign a heathen or justy discagreeing with your boss.
>
>
>
Do you consider getting a C or D on a paper to be comparable to being
"threatened with death"?
Or did we move out of the realm of academic research here at some point
I missed?
And as for the newspaper reporter(s) who cited something read on the
internet and made a lead story of it without proper checking ... he
certainly is properly threatened with "termination" as a result.
-- Troia
Troia
> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:65hr05F...@mid.individual.net...
>> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
>> news:fsvutr$qlk$1@qmul...
>>> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:65h312F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Erm, not universally, by any means; while I'm not a professor in the UK
>>>> or US sense, I mark students' assignments,a nd they get marked down if
>>>> their references consist of a list of URLs.
>>> I'm not sure what they do here but I wouldthink that method is bad
>>> practice
>>> and open to abuse,
>> You'd be quite wrong; it's common practice, and not in any way wrong.
>> That's what Universities have libraries for, y'see.
> They also have cafeterias, prisons have libraries too, so what,
>
>
>> a buy or 'obtain' my book or I'll mark you down isn;t
>>> soemthing I would likoe to see.
>> We don't insist they _buy_ the books, just that they read them.
> And how will they read them if the don't buy them ?
>
>> And we give them access to a library, so they can find books,and read
>> them, free of cost.
> we have classses of 100 or more how many books would they library have to
> buy from the publishers, and whaty if the book should only be availible in
> I've known our library to be short enough of fund not to be able to buy
> enough
> books for our courses and that's in plain paperback form.
>
> Why shouldn't students have the right to reference on-line publications ?
>
>
>
is easy:
If it's an on-line (electronic) version of a print publication, you can
provide more than a URL for reference; you can provide the publication
information for the paper version.
-- Troia
The Sinuous Scintillator of Fascinet
Most scientific papers have an on-line presence. If your editor will
let you, a direct link might be good. Some journals, however, don't
have such nice URLs. Most on-line journals I use make the link for
you, if they can find it or have an agreement with another journal.
That's really nice. Even nicer, most journals give links to papers
citing the paper you're reading.
-F
H Duffy
"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
>
> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:65hr05F...@mid.individual.net...
>> That's what Universities have libraries for, y'see.
> They also have cafeterias, prisons have libraries too, so what,
So students are not in any way compelled to buy the books they need;
therefore, your theory that it is bad practice to insist on them using
actual books, because it means buying things, is clearly faulty. We make
them read books, and we provide, free of charge, the books they need to
read.
>
>
>> a buy or 'obtain' my book or I'll mark you down isn;t
>>> soemthing I would likoe to see.
>>
>> We don't insist they _buy_ the books, just that they read them.
> And how will they read them if the don't buy them ?
Read this slowly, Dave; it's a very very complicated theory, and one you've
probably never come across before, certainly not in this post.
They
Get
Them
From
The
Library.
Do you know what a library is, Dave? It's a place where there are lots of
books, and people can go and read them, or borrow them to read them at home,
without actually buying them.
Do you need an explanation of what a book is too?
>
>> And we give them access to a library, so they can find books,and read
>> them, free of cost.
> we have classses of 100 or more how many books would they library have to
> buy from the publishers, and whaty if the book should only be availible in
> hard back at £80 a copy ?
They don't necessarily all need to read the _same_ book; quite often, the
information they need is provided in lots of different books.
> I've known our library to be short enough of fund not to be able to buy
> enough
> books for our courses and that's in plain paperback form.
>
> Why shouldn't students have the right to reference on-line publications ?
If they're proper, peer-reviewed publications, they can do so. On the other
hand, if they're being lazy and just looking up a bunch of web sites which
haven't been peer-reviewed, they're probably getting inaccurate
informat8ion, so that's not useful for them, and therefore, they're not
allowed to do that.
H
H Duffy
"Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnfv9kd2.pft...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
> On 2008-04-03, H Duffy <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm all in favour of that plan, except it's a little far for me... post
>> me
>> some sushi instead?
>
> I'm with Hester on this, though I'm not convinced that the
> sushi would be too tasty after that journey. Who's in charge of the
> teleporter project these days?
Plastic sushi is, of course, entirely acceptable as far as I'm concerned.
H
Jennie Kermode
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 13:46:26 +0100, Jennie Kermode wrote:
>> Who's in charge of the teleporter project these days?
> It's coming right after the new FAQ. (;
Okay. I shall have a word with Kest at Whitby.
Siobhan
wrote:
>Honestly, that's a little pathetic. Maybe instead of bothering to try
>to hash this convergence stuff out, all twenty of us should go to
>Peter's house and eat sushi.
Works for me.
Siobhan "she said the s word" NiLoughlin
Rob
I've always got more plastic sushi than I know what to do with. And
sushi fridge magnets. The latest addition to the collection is a glass
of plastic chilled Asahi beer.
Rob
whisky-dave
"Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethiscom> wrote in message
> whisky-dave wrote:
>> "Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethiscom> wrote in message
>> news:47f38d92$0$47169$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>>> whisky-dave wrote:
>>>> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:65h312F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> Erm, not universally, by any means; while I'm not a professor in the
>>>>> UK or US sense, I mark students' assignments,a nd they get marked down
>>>>> if their references consist of a list of URLs.
>>>> I'm not sure what they do here but I wouldthink that method is bad
>>>> practice
>>>> and open to abuse, a buy or 'obtain' my book or I'll mark you down
>>>> isn;t
>>>> soemthing I would likoe to see.
>>> No, that isn't what it implies; it's a matter of actually going to the
>>> library and properly researching.
>>
>> Do you really have to go to a library to do that ?
>> I've got some old books at home on the planets, things were believed
>> about Mars
>> 30 years ago that have since been disproved, such as how they formed.
>> I'm sure sigmund wrote somethingn about having sex with your mother or
>> somethign doesn;'t make it true just because it has appear in a book.
>
> Would you give a student a good grade on a paper that made complete sense
> but was based on sources all <x> years old that had since been disproven?
I'd grade pupils on the work they did, not who or what the copied.
>
> For that matter, would you give a student a good grade on a paper about,
> say, evolution or the formation of the earth, who based their writing &
> conclusions on the Bible and other similar sources?
Depends what I was after.
I would not give a studetn good marks for just copying the Bible because
it's authoritive.
Whether or not they quoted it from an on-line source or from the college
library .
If thery could find the originakl scripts and translate them CORRECTLY in to
english then I'd give them very good marks.
>
> And don't academics generally look for sources that have been vetted in
> one way or another,
Most academics recommend their favourite books, some recommend their
own or of colleagues. In each of our course there's is a list of recommended
books.
>which is generally impossible on the internet except for the sites which
>represent print publications and contain similarly-vetted articles?
That would obviously depend on subject matter.
But if I wanted to find the speed of a bullet I could find many sources,
but I'd expect the student to understand that the speed of a bullet while it
is a common reference speed (as is the speed of sound) that the speed
depends on many things.
But perhaps if I was their academic in charge of their course I would
recommend my
book and I'd expect them to cite my book as a reference.
>> with death for beign a heathen or justy discagreeing with your boss.
>>
>>
> Do you consider getting a C or D on a paper to be comparable to being
> "threatened with death"?
Career wise Yes. Getting a D isn;t good for going on to further education.
> Or did we move out of the realm of academic research here at some point I
> missed?
well surley that depends on what you see as academic research.
There certainly were no such things as other planets external to our solar
system
30 years ago. And now today we've even lost on of our own.
But that's under review.
> And as for the newspaper reporter(s) who cited something read on the
> internet and made a lead story of it without proper checking ... he
> certainly is properly threatened with "termination" as a result.
Yep, I'd agree but proper checking isn;t always done if it doesn't suit
certain people otherwise why else would children get sexually abused at a
children's home in Jersey year after year after year.
But as we know ot will always depend ion the subject matter as to how
important
a cite or where it is. A friend that does media studies didn't have to buy
the films on
DVD, film Blu-ray of HD, all he had to do is watch them if he needed to cite
appearances of actors he could use the online movie website.
Soemthing I should re-check is I satrted writting a webpage about star trek
I got an email from the brother of the actor that played the first captain
of the
enterprise saying I got his brothers death date wrong. This I got from an
actual BOOK.
An offical book listing actors and actresses in the star trek series.
I check on-line and some 'fan boy' withy their own personal home built site
had the
date of his death correct. Just because it's in a published book doesn't
make it correct.
Think of all the dinosaur books that had brontosauruses as carnivorous in
the 1960s.
Not all that glitters is gold especially when you're names Gary. :)
whisky-dave
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> news:ft2j94$ma3$1@qmul...
>>
>> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:65hr05F...@mid.individual.net...
>>> You'd be quite wrong; it's common practice, and not in any way wrong.
>>> That's what Universities have libraries for, y'see.
>> They also have cafeterias, prisons have libraries too, so what,
>
> So students are not in any way compelled to buy the books they need;
> therefore, your theory that it is bad practice to insist on them using
> actual books, because it means buying things, is clearly faulty. We make
> them read books, and we provide, free of charge, the books they need to
> read.
I know a few years ago the books brought by our library for our students
cost £8,000.
Local libraies ahve to buy bokos too, or didn't you know that.
>>> a buy or 'obtain' my book or I'll mark you down isn;t
>>>> soemthing I would likoe to see.
>>>
>>> We don't insist they _buy_ the books, just that they read them.
>> And how will they read them if the don't buy them ?
>
> Read this slowly, Dave; it's a very very complicated theory, and one
> you've probably never come across before, certainly not in this post.
>
> They
>
> Get
>
> Them
>
> From
>
> The
>
> Library.
Yes and I supose the library picks them off the local apple trees does it.
When I started my electronics course at college we were told what books
would be good to read. I had to buy them they were NOT available at the
library well the college library had THREE copies for a around 100 students.
And thast was just a one day a week course, with it run on 3 other days
and thatwas just at the one college this course was run in many colleges.
Leyton library my nearest hadn't any as they only supported local
schools/colleges .
> Do you know what a library is, Dave? It's a place where there are lots of
> books, and people can go and read them, or borrow them to read them at
> home, without actually buying them.
Do you realise that NOT every library in the country stocks multiple copies
of ever
book published in fact they tend to stock very few.
> Do you need an explanation of what a book is too?
It is a book of words that an individual writes and that is all it is.
It may make you feel better about yourself, it may not, it won't make you
more intelligent just because you own it, or borrow or steal it.
>>> And we give them access to a library, so they can find books,and read
>>> them, free of cost.
>> we have classses of 100 or more how many books would they library have to
>> buy from the publishers, and whaty if the book should only be availible
>> in
>> hard back at £80 a copy ?
>
> They don't necessarily all need to read the _same_ book; quite often, the
> information they need is provided in lots of different books.
And several on-line places too may well have the same information,
why can't that be used. ?
>> I've known our library to be short enough of fund not to be able to buy
>> enough
>> books for our courses and that's in plain paperback form.
>>
>> Why shouldn't students have the right to reference on-line publications ?
>
> If they're proper, peer-reviewed publications, they can do so. On the
> other hand, if they're being lazy and just looking up a bunch of web sites
> which haven't been peer-reviewed, they're probably getting inaccurate
> informat8ion, so that's not useful for them, and therefore, they're not
> allowed to do that.
Yes they are or should be allowed to, but ultimatly it's about facts and the
truth,
not whether or not it has been peer-reviewed.
When a friend of mine did his degree on aspects of the Spanish civil war
he didn't concentrate on peer-reviewed reports that had been doctored
over the years by anyone, he didn;t just listen to the offical news, he went
to a
reunion of old soldiers in London when he met up with a few old soldiers
few are still alive most are in their 90s talking to someone that fired
shots was shot at,
was captured and escaped, he touched him he dranks with him.
While writing he's report on what it was like during those years the
recollections of this
persons and other serving was far more useful and insightful than any
official
military report of the time, he was also told that no one was really
interested in sking theos ethat actually faught during the time when the
offical military records were written.
Later in the year he trod the same route he did across Spain during the war
to get
an idea.
You are obsessed with peer-reviewed as you're not capable of thinking for
yourself but must have a selection of heroes to choose from before you can
begin to think.
Research should be original not just photocopies of previous work done on
the subject.
whisky-dave
"Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethiscom> wrote in message
>>
>> Why shouldn't students have the right to reference on-line publications ?
>>
>>
>>
> The real question you suggest is there in your last line, and the answer
> is easy:
>
> If it's an on-line (electronic) version of a print publication, you can
> provide more than a URL for reference; you can provide the publication
> information for the paper version.
But why should that be necessary ?.
if yuor'e testing the studetns ability to understand you should expect them
to
explain their choices of material and not just rely on what others have
previously
said about them.
With regard to the pink prison thing.
Dag brought up the idea that hard labour could be the cause of the reduced
reoffending.
Now unless someone can show this as a fact and I've never heard of any study
that
has found that hard labout reduced reoffending or as Hester puts it "a cure
for crime"
I don;t see it as a valid point. Perhaps it was the pink underwear and pink
slippers and pink tracksuit, walls & bars that reduced reoffending.
H Duffy
"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
>
> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:65ku1vF...@mid.individual.net...
>> therefore, your theory that it is bad practice to insist on them using
>> actual books, because it means buying things, is clearly faulty. We make
>> them read books, and we provide, free of charge, the books they need to
>> read.
> The college PAYS for the books out of it's grant paid for by tax payers.
That's right; and therefore, the students don't have to buy them.
Did you think that I was somehow implying that the books aren't paid for at
all? Did you think that your comment was in any way relevant or insightful?
Becaue if you thought any of those thigs, you were wrong. You were arguing
that insisting on students using books for their work was bad because it
forced the students to _buy_ books. Actually, the students are not forced to
buy the books, because the University buys them instead, and makes them
available to the students.
Thus, on pretty much every point you've tried to make on this issue, you
were wrong.
All clear now?
>> Do you know what a library is, Dave? It's a place where there are lots of
>> books, and people can go and read them, or borrow them to read them at
>> home, without actually buying them.
>
> Do you realise that NOT every library in the country stocks multiple
> copies of ever
> book published in fact they tend to stock very few.
But since no student is _ever_ expected to read every book ever published,
that's not a problem.
>> They don't necessarily all need to read the _same_ book; quite often, the
>> information they need is provided in lots of different books.
>
> And several on-line places too may well have the same information,
> why can't that be used. ?
Because online sources tend to be unreliable; they may have the correct
information, but they may have misinformation too. Since websites aren't
peer-reviewed in the same way that books and journal articles are, they're
fundamentally unreliable.
In addition to that, websites encourage lazy research; bung in a couple fo
keywords, grab the first couple of pages that include those words. With a
book, you're likely to need to read more to find what you need, and thus
you'll learn more, and take in more of the context, resulting ina better
understanding of the topic.
>> If they're proper, peer-reviewed publications, they can do so. On the
>> other hand, if they're being lazy and just looking up a bunch of web
>> sites which haven't been peer-reviewed, they're probably getting
>> inaccurate informat8ion, so that's not useful for them, and therefore,
>> they're not allowed to do that.
>
> Yes they are or should be allowed to, but ultimatly it's about facts and
> the truth,
> not whether or not it has been peer-reviewed.
No, actually, it isn't; an awfyul lot of academic work is about opinions,
not "facts and truth", because we simply don't have access to all the "facts
and truth". So, for example, students might be asked to write an essay
comparing and contrasting two theroetical approaches to a particular
subject. There will be some factual material in that essay, but some of it
will also be about opinions.
(Obviously this is not true in all subjects; a maths undergraduate is not
going to have to think very much about opinions, for example.)
H
Oct'avian
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 00:39:48 -0500, kest <k...@spamfree.nettrip.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Honestly, that's a little pathetic. Maybe instead of bothering to try
> >to hash this convergence stuff out, all twenty of us should go to
> >Peter's house and eat sushi.
>
> Works for me.
>
> Siobhan "she said the s word" NiLoughlin
You guys are all welcome to join me on my birthday for my birthday
this year in Portland for some sushi :) (Sunday, April 13th)
Overall evening extraveganza will be Cirque du Soleil's Corteo at
their last showing at 5pm, dinner at Todai's (all you can eat sushi
buffet), and then The Fez Ballroom from 9-1am will have Voltaire and
Ego Likeness playing
~Oct'avian
Dag
> "Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethiscom> wrote in message
> news:47f50f7d$0$17923$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>> If it's an on-line (electronic) version of a print publication, you can
>> provide more than a URL for reference; you can provide the publication
>> information for the paper version.
>
> But why should that be necessary ?.
Do you have any idea what the point of citing your sources is? Do you
really think that a simple URL will point to the same document in 15
years time as it does now? If someone 15 years ago had only referenced
a gopher site, what good would that be now?
> if yuor'e testing the studetns ability to understand you should expect them
> to
> explain their choices of material and not just rely on what others have
> previously
> said about them.
You're not so much testing the students on anything as you are teaching
them how to write academic papers. Citing correctly is a major part of
writing academic papers.
> With regard to the pink prison thing.
> Dag brought up the idea that hard labour could be the cause of the reduced
> reoffending.
Dag actually brought up the point that, without any tests or evidence to
the contrary, that the idea cannot be dismissed out of hand simply
because it doesn't fit your argument. Notice the subtle but distinct
difference?
Dag
Dag
> Research should be original not just photocopies of previous work done on
> the subject.
People read other peoples work not so that they can copy, but so that
they know what has and has not already been done. For your research to
be original you first have to know what has already been done. Do to
that you have to read about what other people have done and then work
forward from that. If everybody was to do start from zero and try to
rediscover everything for themselves nothing would ever get done.
Few things make you look as silly in academic circles as talking about
this great new theory to you just discovered, only to find out that it
has been common knowledge in the field for the past 70 years.
Dag
Bubba Nicholson Ross Nicholson TogetherinParis
Scrape some masculine adult facial skin surface lipid off the
delinquent's father's face and provide it to the delinquent by mouth,
150-200 mg does the trick. One dose is effective and permanent.
Dad's gotta be in good health, no blood-born viruses, intact facial
skin with functioning sebaceous glands, sober, no NSAID medications.
Have the proband refrain from oral osculation as intuition is a
chemosense so the 'father kissing pheromone' will cause jealousy. A
swig of wine cuts the lipids and allows clearance. Wine always
follows the 'blessed' bread in communion, right? Anybody got a
criminal they need cured, let me know and I'll send you enough
pheromone to tackle the job.
On Apr 4, 12:12 pm, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...@final.front.ear> wrote:
> "Troia" <troia.leg...@gmail.removethiscom> wrote in message
>
> news:47f50f7d$0$17923$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>
>
>
> >> Why shouldn't students have the right to reference on-line publications ?
>
> > The real question you suggest is there in your last line, and the answer
> > is easy:
>
> > If it's an on-line (electronic) version of a print publication, you can
> > provide more than a URL for reference; you can provide the publication
> > information for the paper version.
>
> But why should that be necessary ?.
> if yuor'e testing the studetns ability to understand you should expect them
> to
> explain their choices of material and not just rely on what others have
> previously
> said about them.
>
> With regard to the pink prison thing.
> Dag brought up the idea that hard labour could be the cause of the reduced
> reoffending.
> Now unless someone can show this as a fact and I've never heard of any study
> that
> has found that hard labout reduced reoffending or as Hester puts it "acurefor crime"
kest
agLETs - now also good for sushi? (Which I think would make them
agSETs, but whatever.)
k
Oct'avian
> "H Duffy" <hester_du...@nospam.hotmail.com> scrawled:
>
>
>
> > "kest" <k...@spamfree.nettrip.org> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9A74E9FC4D9Ck...@kest.ninehells.com...
> >> Peter H. Coffin <hell...@othin.ninehells.com> scrawled:
>
> >>> Top 20 posters for the 7 day period ending Thu Apr 3 05:00:04 GMT
> >>> 2008.
> >> Honestly, that's a little pathetic. Maybe instead of bothering to
> >> try to hash this convergence stuff out, all twenty of us should go to
> >> Peter's house and eat sushi.
>
> > I'm all in favour of that plan, except it's a little far for me...
> > post me some sushi instead?
>
> agLETs - now also good for sushi? (Which I think would make them
> agSETs, but whatever.)
>
> k
I'm not sure I would trust sushi in the post. Even in a cooler box to
keep is frosty, there is something wrong with that...
~Oct'avian
Metamorph
> Top 20 posters for the 7 day period ending Thu Apr 3 05:00:04 GMT 2008.
>
> 21 42.3 Peter H. Coffin hel...@ninehells.com
> 15 68.1 whisky-dave whisk...@final.front.ear
> 15 38.6 Troia troia....@gmail.removethiscom
> 9 51.2 H Duffy hester...@nospam.hotmail.com
> 8 15.8 Jennie Kermode "Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.u
> 6 16.0 Dag dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com
> 6 7.9 oonh ot...@abyss.ninehells.com
> 5 13.8 c_death death+...@perkigoth.com
> 5 12.8 Metamorph Meta...@cox.net
I'm back for one day and in one thread and I hit the top 10???
Metamorph, Spring Break?
--
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly used
up, totally worn out and screaming, "Woo hoo! What a ride!" --Kathleen
Harper
Metamorph
> Honestly, that's a little pathetic. Maybe instead of bothering to try
> to hash this convergence stuff out, all twenty of us should go to
> Peter's house and eat sushi.
Sounds good to me!
Metamorph <Homer> Sushiiii <Homer>
mother
It's also the case that the sheriff in question is basically a
politician; in that he has to be re-elected every few years if he wants
to keep his job. Only a complete simpleton would take anything he said
at face value without investigating further.
<hugs>
H Duffy
"mother" <mother@bedtime> wrote in message
news:2008040702115975249-mother@bedtime...
> On 2008-04-04 23:28:54 +0100, Dag <dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com> said:
>
>> whisky-dave wrote:
>>> With regard to the pink prison thing.
>>> Dag brought up the idea that hard labour could be the cause of the
>>> reduced reoffending.
>>
>> Dag actually brought up the point that, without any tests or evidence to
>> the contrary, that the idea cannot be dismissed out of hand simply
>> because it doesn't fit your argument. Notice the subtle but distinct
>> difference?
>
> in that he has to be re-elected every few years if he wants to keep his
> job. Only a complete simpleton would take anything he said at face value
> without investigating further.
*grin* And indeed, only a complete simpleton did... :-)
H
whisky-dave
"The Sinuous Scintillator of Fascinet" <fasc...@my-deja.com> wrote in
message
news:85b7509a-1d5d-4602...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 2, 7:55 am, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...@final.front.ear> wrote:
> "The Sinuous Scintillator of Fascinet" <fasci...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> messagenews:a11fa31a-8de6-40ec...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 1, 10:27 am, Dag <f98d...@dd.chalmers.se> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:46:30 -0700 (PDT), Oct'avian
> > <octav...@silvermoondesigns.org> wrote:
> > > On Mar 29, 12:55 am, Troia <troia.leg...@gmail.removethiscom> wrote:
> > >> I see this as an albeit-cyclic parallel to those people who believe
> > >> that
> > >> books -- the ones made of paper & such -- will disappear because you
> > >> can
> > >> get the content in such supposedly-new-and-improved ways now.
>
> > >> And yet, despite the doom-and-gloom predictions, and despite
> > >> web-boards
> > >> and e-books and books-on-tape and instant-messaging ... more books
> > >> are
> > >> sold, and more people are on news servers.
> > >> -- Troia
>
> > > I had a philosophy professor in college who was adamant about the use
> > > of the newly built library building we had on campus being utilzed.
> > > At least once a term he would say things like: "There is this
> > > building, with windows, that has books in it- it's called a library.
> > > The college spent a lot of money making a newer better building, and I
> > > want you to make use of it. The only website I want to see listed as
> > > a reference is the online location of a literary journal or
> > > publication"
>
> > What is wrong about reading a (chapter from a) book online instead of
> > waiting 2 weeks for the library to try to get hold of a hard copy?
>
> And how would he know?
>
> If you're referencing a website other than the arXiv, you probably
> aren't getting pre-vetted information.
>
> Why should that matter surely the idea for research is that it should not
> only be somewhat original on the researchers side, and not just a copy and
> paste of someone else's book
> vetted or not as that could be plagiarism if the original materail isn't
> properly cited.
>
> As much as I complain about the uselessness of the literature, even
> the arXiv shows you how useful the minor vetting that occurs from
> editors and reviewers is.
>
> Sure but what about your own work rather than just agreeing or disagreeing
> with others comments.
>
In my own work, the arguing with editors and reviewers in trying to
cite a reference not in a refereed journal is more trouble than it's
worth.
That says more about editors and reviews doesn't it.
whisky-dave
"Dag" <dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com> wrote in message
news:ft6a3...@news2.newsguy.com...
> whisky-dave wrote:
>> "Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethiscom> wrote in message
>> news:47f50f7d$0$17923$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>
>>> If it's an on-line (electronic) version of a print publication, you can
>>> provide more than a URL for reference; you can provide the publication
>>> information for the paper version.
>>
>> But why should that be necessary ?.
>
> Do you have any idea what the point of citing your sources is? Do you
> really think that a simple URL will point to the same document in 15 years
> time as it does now? If someone 15 years ago had only referenced a gopher
> site, what good would that be now?
It is to show where you got the information from at the time.
In undergraduate work it is only to find where you got the information.
it does not have to stay there for 15 years.
>> if yuor'e testing the studetns ability to understand you should expect
>> them to
>> explain their choices of material and not just rely on what others have
>> previously
>> said about them.
>
> You're not so much testing the students on anything as you are teaching
> them how to write academic papers.
When a student is told how to cite something properly the idea is to find
out
where they got the information from not whether or not it is correct.
>Citing correctly is a major part of writing academic papers.
The major bit of writing academic papers is that they are correct in what
they state.
If you want to write an acadenmic paper on unifying the 4 forces at the time
of the big bang
and you happen to be say Steven Hawkins there's few cites you can include
you really have to think for yourself.
>> With regard to the pink prison thing.
>> Dag brought up the idea that hard labour could be the cause of the
>> reduced reoffending.
>
> Dag actually brought up the point that, without any tests or evidence to
> the contrary, that the idea cannot be dismissed out of hand simply because
> it doesn't fit your argument.
Then why believe such a thing without citing any evidence.
for 100s years in the USA especially, hard labour has been used in prisons.
Don't you think they'd be some data to support the view that hard labour
reduces reoffending ? If not then why not, could it be that such data has
been
ignored or even faked.
>Notice the subtle but distinct
> difference?
The subtle difference is that you can't prove hard labour had any more
effect than
the invisible purple squid farting reduces crime.
Now can you back up your claim or not.
whisky-dave
You said he claimed he had found a cure for crime.
Now how did you come to that conclusion.
>
The Sinuous Scintillator of Fascinet
> "The Sinuous Scintillator of Fascinet" <fasci...@my-deja.com> wrote in
>
Certainly it says something.
The question is: are they right?
They probably are.
I can put any trash I want on the arXiv, and people do.
-F
whisky-dave
"Dag" <dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com> wrote in message
> whisky-dave wrote:
>
>> Research should be original not just photocopies of previous work done on
>> the subject.
>
> People read other peoples work not so that they can copy, but so that they
> know what has and has not already been done. For your research to be
> original you first have to know what has already been done.
> Do to that you have to read about what other people have done and then
> work forward from that.
The second use of the internet was to connect universities together to help
research rather than hinder it by waiting for books to be published.
> If everybody was to do start from zero and try to rediscover everything
> for themselves nothing would ever get done.
And it happens a lot faster via on line.
For instance I didn't hear about the successfully docking of the ISS with
the
Jules Verne AVT until sometime friday night saturday morn.
Now why can't I say it happened or anyone else. Why is it we have to wait
until
a book is published and lots of thothers read that book, agree that the
docking took
place, perhaps you won;t acknolwdge this for a few months until a book is
published
is that it.
> Few things make you look as silly in academic circles as talking about
> this great new theory to you just discovered, only to find out that it has
> been common knowledge in the field for the past 70 years.
Nowadays papers and jounals can appear on-ine long before they appear in
print,
and in some case things are discussed in advance of teh papers such as the
prediction
of the expected results from the LHC.
whisky-dave
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> news:ft5k1n$ls3$1@qmul...
>>
>> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:65ku1vF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> So students are not in any way compelled to buy the books they need;
>>> therefore, your theory that it is bad practice to insist on them using
>>> actual books, because it means buying things, is clearly faulty. We make
>>> them read books, and we provide, free of charge, the books they need to
>>> read.
>> The college PAYS for the books out of it's grant paid for by tax payers.
>
> That's right; and therefore, the students don't have to buy them.
> Did you think that I was somehow implying that the books aren't paid for
> at all?
Well I was wondering how you think books are obtained.
>Did you think that your comment was in any way relevant or insightful?
Yes.
> Becaue if you thought any of those thigs, you were wrong. You were arguing
> that insisting on students using books for their work was bad because it
> forced the students to _buy_ books.
No that is not the case What I was saying that being only allowed to cite
specific books
is wrong especially if you're only allowed to cite those books written by
your academic.
> Actually, the students are not forced to buy the books, because the
> University buys them instead, and makes them available to the students.
The university does NOT have sufficient fund to buy all the books required.
every year the head of the library sites down with members of the
departments
to decide which books should be brought. But there are budget restrictions
involved
in case you didn't know 'pockets' aren't infinite.
> Thus, on pretty much every point you've tried to make on this issue, you
> were wrong.
> All clear now?
No you've either got it wrong or at best misunderstood.
Niether colleges/univercities or public libraies ccarry 100 copies of the
same book.
>
>>> Do you know what a library is, Dave? It's a place where there are lots
>>> of books, and people can go and read them, or borrow them to read them
>>> at home, without actually buying them.
>>
>> Do you realise that NOT every library in the country stocks multiple
>> copies of ever
>> book published in fact they tend to stock very few.
>
> But since no student is _ever_ expected to read every book ever published,
> that's not a problem.
What do you mean by a problem.
When you are in a class of 100 and a book is recommended and there are at
most 10
copies in the library and 100 people on the course and everyone wants to
read the
same book that becomes a problem.
>
>>> They don't necessarily all need to read the _same_ book; quite often,
>>> the information they need is provided in lots of different books.
>>
>> And several on-line places too may well have the same information,
>> why can't that be used. ?
>
> Because online sources tend to be unreliable; they may have the correct
> information, but they may have misinformation too. Since websites aren't
> peer-reviewed in the same way that books and journal articles are, they're
> fundamentally unreliable.
That depends on what you're using them for.
If all you have to do is copy someone else's work then it becomes a problem
but if you are expected to think for yourself then it shouldn't be a
problem..
But as I keep saying it depends on subject matter.
If you want to list the spacecrafts that have docked with the ISS
you won;t find ANY book on the whole planet that will give you the
information
you require and even if youo did it would be WRONG. One docked on thursday
but where the proof how would you cite such a thing. Apart from the Space
agencies
there's very little proof anythings even in orbit. In fact there's only one
amateur that's
taken a photo and that's not exactly clear.
> In addition to that, websites encourage lazy research;
I'd agree to a certain extent, and that too includes books.
>bung in a couple fo keywords, grab the first couple of pages that include
>those words. With a book, you're likely to need to read more to find what
>you need, and thus you'll learn more, and take in more of the context,
>resulting ina better understanding of the topic.
But perhaps you'll also miss alot of what is actually available .
If yuo want to find out what';s going on in China and Tibet would you
realyl just read the offical Chinese press ?
>>> If they're proper, peer-reviewed publications, they can do so. On the
>>> other hand, if they're being lazy and just looking up a bunch of web
>>> sites which haven't been peer-reviewed, they're probably getting
>>> inaccurate informat8ion, so that's not useful for them, and therefore,
>>> they're not allowed to do that.
>>
>> Yes they are or should be allowed to, but ultimatly it's about facts and
>> the truth,
>> not whether or not it has been peer-reviewed.
>
> No, actually, it isn't; an awfyul lot of academic work is about opinions,
Isn't everyone allowed opinions.
> not "facts and truth", because we simply don't have access to all the
> "facts and truth"
Who's we.
>. So, for example, students might be asked to write an essay comparing and
>contrasting two theroetical approaches to a particular subject. There will
>be some factual material in that essay, but some of it will also be about
>opinions.
And in that case we'd still be the centre of the universe, because only
certain peoples
opinions would be allowed to be heard and if you had your own or followed
anyone else's
then you'd fail the course or at worst be locked up for life or killed is
that it .
True education is about advancment not arse licking.
> (Obviously this is not true in all subjects; a maths undergraduate is not
> going to have to think very much about opinions, for example.)
In fact all subjects if you're referring to true education.
Even Darwin believed in God the problem was what he saw with his eyes
didn't match the facts of the time, if all he would have been allowed to do
was cite
his peers where would we be now.
Your trouble is you don;t realise education is about advancement rather than
stagnation.
Think how far women would have got in the world if we'd just all agreed with
the peers of the 1900s , and how about slavery if everyone had just asked
their peers
whether or not black people should have rights, and then women and animals.
In your world where we must only agree with our teachers we'd learn nothing
new.
Endymion
> We make
> them read books, and we provide, free of charge, the books they need to
> read.
Good gracious - they actually provide books for students at the
university level over there?!?
How will the textbook publishers ever get away with charging $120 (or
the equiv. in sterling or euro) for one textbook if the entity making
purchasing decisions is also the one paying the bill? How do the
secondhand booksellers get away with selling a used book for $89.95
and buying it back four months later for $10?
Farkin' commies... next thing you know they'll be feeding the
students!
- Endymion
Troia
> "Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethiscom> wrote in message
> news:47f50f7d$0$17923$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>
>>> Why shouldn't students have the right to reference on-line publications ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The real question you suggest is there in your last line, and the answer
>> is easy:
>>
>> If it's an on-line (electronic) version of a print publication, you can
>> provide more than a URL for reference; you can provide the publication
>> information for the paper version.
>
> But why should that be necessary ?.
> if yuor'e testing the studetns ability to understand you should expect them to
> explain their choices of material and not just rely on what others have previously
> said about them.
It is necessary (to provide more than a URL) because anyone can publish
anything on the internet, and students are not required to prove the
authoritative credentials of their sources.
Or how would you suggest that the form(at) of footnotes and
bibliographies be modified to ensure the sources were reasonable?
-- Troia
H Duffy
"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
>
> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:65n5vdF...@mid.individual.net...
> The college does NOT buy enough books for every student.
It doesn't buy enough of every book for each student to have one, no. But as
I've said, they don't need one of every book; they simply need to read
_some_ books, and usually, the information they need will appear in several
different books, so it is entirely possible for all the students to find
exactly what they need, in the library. Apart from anything else, a lot of
what they need will be in journal articles, and most libraries don't let you
take journals out; instead, you take a photocopy of the article you need,
which means every member of the class can get a copy.
>>Did you think that your comment was in any way relevant or insightful?
> Yes.
Ah. You were wrong.
>
>> Becaue if you thought any of those thigs, you were wrong. You were
>> arguing that insisting on students using books for their work was bad
>> because it forced the students to _buy_ books.
> No that is not the case What I was saying that being only allowed to cite
> specific books
> is wrong especially if you're only allowed to cite those books written by
> your academic.
In that case, you were going off on a tangent. No-one has suggested, at any
point in this discussion, that students should only be allowed to cite
specific books, or that they shoud only be allowed to cite books by their
lecturers or other teachers.
So your comment was not, in fact, insightful or relevant; it was a pointless
tangent.
>> Thus, on pretty much every point you've tried to make on this issue, you
>> were wrong.
>> All clear now?
> No you've either got it wrong or at best misunderstood.
> Niether colleges/univercities or public libraies ccarry 100 copies of the
> same book.
And no-one has claimed that they do.
>> But since no student is _ever_ expected to read every book ever
>> published, that's not a problem.
> What do you mean by a problem.
> When you are in a class of 100 and a book is recommended and there are at
> most 10
> copies in the library and 100 people on the course and everyone wants to
> read the
> same book that becomes a problem.
And if any class ever only recommended one book, that would indeed be an
issue. However, since that's never the case, it's not an issue; instead, any
given lecturer will recommend at least half a dozen books, and often some
journal articles as well (if it's for a specific topic, rather than a more
general course-book), any of which will give the students the ifnromation
they need. They are also allowed, nay, encouraged, to go and do their own
research and find other reputable sources of information on the same topic.
It's not like A levels where there is one course book and that's the only
one used.
>> Because online sources tend to be unreliable; they may have the correct
>> information, but they may have misinformation too. Since websites aren't
>> peer-reviewed in the same way that books and journal articles are,
>> they're fundamentally unreliable.
> That depends on what you're using them for.
And since we're talking about using them for academic work, you're going off
ona tangent again.
> If all you have to do is copy someone else's work
But we're not talking about that, so it's irrelevant.
>>bung in a couple fo keywords, grab the first couple of pages that include
>>those words. With a book, you're likely to need to read more to find what
>>you need, and thus you'll learn more, and take in more of the context,
>>resulting ina better understanding of the topic.
>
> But perhaps you'll also miss alot of what is actually available .
Yes. No student is expected to read _all_ the available information.
>> No, actually, it isn't; an awfyul lot of academic work is about opinions,
> Isn't everyone allowed opinions.
Another tangent; where is there any indication that anyone thinks that
people aren't allowed opinions?
>
>> not "facts and truth", because we simply don't have access to all the
>> "facts and truth"
> Who's we.
The human race.
>>. So, for example, students might be asked to write an essay comparing and
>>contrasting two theroetical approaches to a particular subject. There will
>>be some factual material in that essay, but some of it will also be about
>>opinions.
> And in that case we'd still be the centre of the universe, because only
> certain peoples
> opinions would be allowed to be heard and if you had your own or followed
> anyone else's
> then you'd fail the course or at worst be locked up for life or killed is
> that it .
Are you aware that what you've just said is a non sequitur? You seem to be
reading something completely separate from what I've actually said. You seem
to think I'm saying that students must follow the party line, and only
express certain opinions which have the official rubber-stamp on them.
Actually, I've said no such thing. So who are you replying to, and what did
they say?
>> (Obviously this is not true in all subjects; a maths undergraduate is not
>> going to have to think very much about opinions, for example.)
>
> In fact all subjects if you're referring to true education.
> Even Darwin believed in God the problem was what he saw with his eyes
> didn't match the facts of the time, if all he would have been allowed to
> do was cite
> his peers where would we be now.
> Your trouble is you don;t realise education is about advancement rather
> than stagnation.
Do you realise that research is one of the things I do for a living? Like,
new research, finding out new stuff?
You really have absolutely no conception of other people, do you? You've got
this weird picture of what you _think_ I am, what what you think I believe,
and it doesn't matter than your view of my and my beliefs is entirely worng,
and that it goes against all the evidence; you've got your opinion, and you
can't or won't change it.
> Think how far women would have got in the world if we'd just all agreed
> with
> the peers of the 1900s , and how about slavery if everyone had just asked
> their peers
> whether or not black people should have rights, and then women and
> animals.
> In your world where we must only agree with our teachers we'd learn
> nothing new.
Where have I ever said that students must agree with their teachers?
Mind you, you've missed something pretty obvious; it's generally not
students who come up with new stuff. It's the teachers themselves. This is
because most students don't have the skills or undestanding needed in order
to be innovative and to create new research; that's why they're students.
They need to learn the state of the Science, and they need to learn research
skills. Once they've learned that, and learned about the research that has
already been done, they can become proficient, and they can do their own
research, and find out new stuff. But in general, it's the teachers, who are
also reserachers, who do the innovative stuff. My research, for example,
brings together a couple of different areas which haven't really been
brought together before. I'm going to be contradicting some of the "stuff we
all know", and hopefully supporting some other work that disagrees with the
"stuff we all know".
The other error you're making, of course, is that you seem to be assuming
there is A Party Line. There isn't; there are lots and lots of different
people with widely differing opinions on The Way It Is. So even if we wanted
to teach our students The Party Line (which we don't), we couldn't, because
there isn't one. All we can do is teach them about the research and theories
that already exist,a nd try to give them the cognitive and research tools to
understand the theories and the research, and to do more researchj to add
more evidence to the debate.
Mind you, why I'm bothering to tell you any of this, I don't know; you'll
ignore it all and go back to your bridge where you can throw turds at other
people and accuse them of being unenlightened and unsophisticated.
H
The Sinuous Scintillator of Fascinet
> On Apr 3, 4:46 pm, "H Duffy" <hester_du...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We make
> > them read books, and we provide, free of charge, the books they need to
> > read.
>
> Good gracious - they actually provide books for students at the
> university level over there?!?
>
I'm wondering what level of propaganda is necessary to make someone
believe her students actually read the assigned books, free or not.
>
> How will the textbook publishers ever get away with charging $120 (or
> the equiv. in sterling or euro) for one textbook if the entity making
> purchasing decisions is also the one paying the bill? How do the
> secondhand booksellers get away with selling a used book for $89.95
> and buying it back four months later for $10?
>
> Farkin' commies... next thing you know they'll be feeding the
> students!
>
You expect handouts for your $50k a year?
Students are getting more and more uppity all the time.
-F
H Duffy
On Apr 7, 11:26 am, Endymion <disintegrat...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 4:46 pm, "H Duffy" <hester_du...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > We make
> > > them read books, and we provide, free of charge, the books they need
> > > to
> > > read.
>
> > Good gracious - they actually provide books for students at the
> > university level over there?!?
>
> I'm wondering what level of propaganda is necessary to make someone
> believe her students actually read the assigned books, free or not.
*heh* Oh, some of them do. And some of those even kind of understand what
they read!
H
Dag
> "Dag" <dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com> wrote in message
> news:ft6ce...@news2.newsguy.com...
>> whisky-dave wrote:
>>
>>> Research should be original not just photocopies of previous work done on
>>> the subject.
>> People read other peoples work not so that they can copy, but so that they
>> know what has and has not already been done. For your research to be
>> original you first have to know what has already been done.
> Yes done it does not have to appear in print nowerdays.
I know for a fact I never made any claim about stuff having to be in
print. Who are you arguing with?
>> Do to that you have to read about what other people have done and then
>> work forward from that.
> The second use of the internet was to connect universities together to help
> research rather than hinder it by waiting for books to be published.
Yes, and? What does that have to do with anything we are discussing.
Some times I get the feeling you just ignore what people say and make up
your arguments that you think they made and arguing against that rather
than what was actually said. A little bit like arguing with the voices
in your head, but more public and more annoying.
>> If everybody was to do start from zero and try to rediscover everything
>> for themselves nothing would ever get done.
> And it happens a lot faster via on line.
Which is why I in several places spoke in favour of using the Internet
for searching for articles.
> For instance I didn't hear about the successfully docking of the ISS with
> the
> Jules Verne AVT until sometime friday night saturday morn.
> Now why can't I say it happened or anyone else. Why is it we have to wait
> until
> a book is published and lots of thothers read that book, agree that the
> docking took
> place, perhaps you won;t acknolwdge this for a few months until a book is
> published
> is that it.
You really cannot be this thick. Where have I said anything that even
vaguely ties into the above incoherent rambling? See my above point
about making up other peoples arguments.
>> Few things make you look as silly in academic circles as talking about
>> this great new theory to you just discovered, only to find out that it has
>> been common knowledge in the field for the past 70 years.
>
> Nowadays papers and jounals can appear on-ine long before they appear in
> print,
Which is why I think the Internet is great for research and journal
publication. In fact I said so in many many places, and that has never
been the issue. Again have you even read anything I've written? My
point is not and never has been print vs. on-line. What we have been
talking about is a) per-reviewed journal article vs. random web pages
and citing information in a way that makes easy for future readers to
find vs. citing a less permanent URLs. See again the bit about making
up other peoples arguments and arguing against those instead of what was
actually said.
Dag
Dag
> "Dag" <dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com> wrote in message
> news:ft6a3...@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Do you have any idea what the point of citing your sources is? Do you
>> really think that a simple URL will point to the same document in 15 years
>> time as it does now? If someone 15 years ago had only referenced a gopher
>> site, what good would that be now?
>
> It is to show where you got the information from at the time.
No it is to let people know where they can find the information in
question so they can verify it for themselves. Nobody cares where
exactly you got your particular copy of an article from, they care about
being able to find a copy of the same article.
> In undergraduate work it is only to find where you got the information.
The whole point of university is to learn. Letting your students get
away with doing something completely wrong with telling them that it is
incorrect just because "undergraduate work is never important anyway" is
doing your students a huge disservice.
> it does not have to stay there for 15 years.
Article question should ideally be findable in 15 years time, and your
cite should be in such a format to make finding it as easy as possible.
>> Citing correctly is a major part of writing academic papers.
> The major bit of writing academic papers is that they are correct in what
> they state.
Even more important than that is the what I write is independently
verifiable as correct. Simply having a bunch of statements without
proof or argument is basically useless no matter how correct they might
be. See Fermat's last theorem for what happens when you simply make a
statement (which happened to be correct) without proof or argument.
> If you want to write an acadenmic paper on unifying the 4 forces at the time
> of the big bang
> and you happen to be say Steven Hawkins there's few cites you can include
> you really have to think for yourself.
A) most of us aren't Stephen Hawking, and are humbly forced to stand on
the shoulders of the giants that preceded us. B) If you actually bother
to check a couple of papers written by prof. Hawking you'd find that he
has cited several works written by others, so your argument trivially
fails. C) where do you get this idea that citing others and thinking
for yourself are somehow at odds with each other.
>>> With regard to the pink prison thing.
>>> Dag brought up the idea that hard labour could be the cause of the
>>> reduced reoffending.
>> Dag actually brought up the point that, without any tests or evidence to
>> the contrary, that the idea cannot be dismissed out of hand simply because
>> it doesn't fit your argument.
> Don't you think they'd be some data to support the view that hard labour
> reduces reoffending ?
I have no idea if such data exists or not, nor do I particularly care
enough to bother looking it up.
> If not then why not, could it be that such data has
> been ignored or even faked.
I suppose it's possible.
>
> >Notice the subtle but distinct
>> difference?
> The subtle difference is that you can't prove hard labour had any more
> effect than
> the invisible purple squid farting reduces crime.
> Now can you back up your claim or not.
Back up what claim? My claim that it is bad science to ignore
variables, without justification, simply because they don't support your
thesis? Is that the claim that you want me to back up? Do you really
have a serious problem with that concept?
Dag
Dag
> The whole point of university is to learn. Letting your students get
> away with doing something completely wrong with telling them that it is
> incorrect
Should of course be _without_ telling them...
Dag
Axel
>On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 00:39:48 -0500, kest <ke...@spamfree.nettrip.org>
>wrote:
>
>>Honestly, that's a little pathetic. Maybe instead of bothering to try
>>to hash this convergence stuff out, all twenty of us should go to
>>Peter's house and eat sushi.
>
>Works for me.
>
>Siobhan "she said the s word" NiLoughlin
We have tentative plans to head up that way in October to visit The
House on the Rock.
Could we hold on 'til then?
--
Axel... ...Kallisti
"Everything is true, even false things" -Malaclypse the Younger
"How can that be?" "Don't ask me, man, I didn't do it."
<ax...@eol.ca>
Axel
wrote:
>Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>> Top 20 posters for the 7 day period ending Thu Apr 3 05:00:04 GMT 2008.
>>
>> posts kbytes name address
>> 21 42.3 Peter H. Coffin hel...@ninehells.com
>> 15 68.1 whisky-dave whisk...@final.front.ear
>> 15 38.6 Troia troia....@gmail.removethiscom
>> 9 51.2 H Duffy hester...@nospam.hotmail.com
>> 8 15.8 Jennie Kermode "Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.u
>> 6 16.0 Dag dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com
>> 6 7.9 oonh ot...@abyss.ninehells.com
>> 5 13.8 c_death death+...@perkigoth.com
>> 5 12.8 Metamorph Meta...@cox.net
>
>I'm back for one day and in one thread and I hit the top 10???
The old girl ain't what she used to be.
Imagine what you could do with a week.
Peter H. Coffin
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:18:50 -0400, Siobhan <ne...@virulent.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 00:39:48 -0500, kest <ke...@spamfree.nettrip.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Honestly, that's a little pathetic. Maybe instead of bothering to try
>>>to hash this convergence stuff out, all twenty of us should go to
>>>Peter's house and eat sushi.
>>
>>Works for me.
>>
>>Siobhan "she said the s word" NiLoughlin
>
> We have tentative plans to head up that way in October to visit The
> House on the Rock.
>
> Could we hold on 'til then?
If it's early October, the pool might still be open.
--
52. I will hire a team of board-certified architects and surveyors to
examine my castle and inform me of any secret passages and abandoned
tunnels that I might not know about.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
whisky-dave
"Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethiscom> wrote in message
> whisky-dave wrote:
>> "Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethiscom> wrote in message
>> news:47f50f7d$0$17923$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>>
>>>> Why shouldn't students have the right to reference on-line publications
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The real question you suggest is there in your last line, and the answer
>>> is easy:
>>>
>>> If it's an on-line (electronic) version of a print publication, you can
>>> provide more than a URL for reference; you can provide the publication
>>> information for the paper version.
>>
>> But why should that be necessary ?.
>> if yuor'e testing the studetns ability to understand you should expect
>> them to
>> explain their choices of material and not just rely on what others have
>> previously
>> said about them.
>
> It is necessary (to provide more than a URL) because anyone can publish
> anything on the internet,
>and students are not required to prove the authoritative credentials of
>their sources.
>
> Or how would you suggest that the form(at) of footnotes and bibliographies
> be modified to ensure the sources were reasonable?
Than depends what you mean by reasonable doesn't it.
If say a Tibetan teenager posts on his blog that his parents have been
killed
for what they believe in, are you suggesting that his myspace page is wrong
and that
the only source you should quote is the Chinese Embassy saying nothings
dodgy
going on here then.
What yuo need to be is allow anything to be cited, and it's up to the
student
to inteprete that cite and the marker should then mark the paper according
rather than
just look at the officail cites and decide those are the only ones that can
give correct
information.
Music is a classic example (pun intended) how do you know wheterh or not
a band is worth checking out, Listen to Waht Paul McCartney thinks or some
unknownn goth you happen to have met that recokions he knows what a good
tune is
because he probably knows nothing about good music otherwiase he'd be as
well off
and have sold as many reciords as Paul M.
I was reading Dark Phoenix 's book reviews, not website required there
either
will I be able to link to it 15 years from now ? Does it make it valid, do I
only
listen to official others on what books are good and bad, why can't everyone
be allowed
to think for themselves. If I want to know how good a book is the last place
I'd go will be
the publishers, I'd listen to someone more that has nothing to gain from its
sales.
whisky-dave
"Dag" <dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com> wrote in message
> whisky-dave wrote:
>> "Dag" <dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ft6a3...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>>> Do you have any idea what the point of citing your sources is? Do you
>>> really think that a simple URL will point to the same document in 15
>>> years time as it does now? If someone 15 years ago had only referenced
>>> a gopher site, what good would that be now?
>>
>> It is to show where you got the information from at the time.
>
> No it is to let people know where they can find the information in
> question so they can verify it for themselves.
>Nobody cares where
> exactly you got your particular copy of an article from, they care about
> being able to find a copy of the same article.
Well if you tell them via a URL why isn't that good enough ?
If I tell them I have a book with the same article and that book is now out
of print
how do we proceed. Surely it's the information itself that is relevant and
not where
you can find it. But I guess it's only important where you get it from if
you don;t
understand the information in the first place.
i.e in that if you don;t understand it, then it becomes more important to
know the source.
Also if you support something you don;t understand, and you can point to
someone else
that's clever that believes it to, you tend to make yourself seem cleverer,
which may not be the case.
>> In undergraduate work it is only to find where you got the information.
>
> The whole point of university is to learn. Letting your students get away
> with doing something completely wrong with telling them that it is
> incorrect just because "undergraduate work is never important anyway" is
> doing your students a huge disservice.
Insisting they only point to your particular source in your book is also
wrong.
Education isn;t just about agreeing with your peers, otherwise we'd still
believe
that we are the centre of the universe. We;d all pioint to the same officail
source
that tells us what to think that IS NOT education.
>
>> it does not have to stay there for 15 years.
>
> Article question should ideally be findable in 15 years time, and your
> cite should be in such a format to make finding it as easy as possible.
Where does this 15 years come from and why.
We only have to keep student records for 5 years, that doesn't mean after
that
time the work never existed.
>>> Citing correctly is a major part of writing academic papers.
>
>> The major bit of writing academic papers is that they are correct in what
>> they state.
>
> Even more important than that is the what I write is independently
> verifiable as correct.
No that what YOU write is correct not what you copy is correct.
>Simply having a bunch of statements without proof or argument is basically
>useless no matter how correct they might be.
It depends on what you're looking for. If your looking for originality
rather than
history, then just post links to whatever you wish to believe.
If that means there's no planets outside this solar system the go for it.
If you believe King herod sent and army to kill Jesus then do that too.
If you want to prove man landed or didn;t land on the moon then provide
cites,
compare them and then think for yourself.
>See Fermat's last theorem for what happens when you simply make a statement
>(which happened to be correct) without proof or argument.
And should pointing to that get you a degree in math ?
>> If you want to write an acadenmic paper on unifying the 4 forces at the
>> time of the big bang
>> and you happen to be say Steven Hawkins there's few cites you can include
>> you really have to think for yourself.
>
> A) most of us aren't Stephen Hawking, and are humbly forced to stand on
> the shoulders of the giants that preceded us.
Yopu still need to know how to stand rather than arse lick.
>B) If you actually bother to check a couple of papers written by prof.
>Hawking you'd find that he has cited several works written by others, so
>your argument trivially fails.
Why anyone can cites others works, that is not what makes him the person he
is.
>C) where do you get this idea that citing others and thinking for yourself
>are somehow at odds with each other.
because if you're restricted to authorative cites and not allowed to think
for yourself then
there's no educational,value and no progression.
>
>>>> With regard to the pink prison thing.
>>>> Dag brought up the idea that hard labour could be the cause of the
>>>> reduced reoffending.
>>> Dag actually brought up the point that, without any tests or evidence to
>>> the contrary, that the idea cannot be dismissed out of hand simply
>>> because it doesn't fit your argument.
>
>> Don't you think they'd be some data to support the view that hard labour
>> reduces reoffending ?
>
> I have no idea if such data exists or not, nor do I particularly care
> enough to bother looking it up.
So you're not very good at research then are you.
Surely if yuo wish to prove your point that the hard labour could have any
effect on reoffending then you should be able to cite such tests or facts
to prove it,
otherwise why say it. I could say it was because the moon is further awayb
that it was, or perhaps topically cite global warming as the cause.
>
> > If not then why not, could it be that such data has
> > been ignored or even faked.
>
> I suppose it's possible.
Then you'd be able to prove it wouldn't you, otherwise your just another
fuckwit
that can't provide cites to back up what you believe.
As I said Hester believ(d) that the debris from whatever came down in
Roswell was
a weather ballon because she was fooled by peolpe far cleverer than her.
All that had to do was push their authority, saying it was a weather ballon
now move along.
It manitained that anyone that believed anything esle was an idiot and that
stoped
a lot of people thinking for themselves, it also meant that others could
claim anything
they wanted and the US airfocre/government was more than happy to let them
because this distracted others from finding the truth.
>> >Notice the subtle but distinct
>>> difference?
>> The subtle difference is that you can't prove hard labour had any more
>> effect than
>> the invisible purple squid farting reduces crime.
>> Now can you back up your claim or not.
>
> Back up what claim? My claim that it is bad science to ignore variables,
> without justification, simply because they don't support your thesis? Is
> that the claim that you want me to back up? Do you really have a serious
> problem with that concept?
I have a problem when you say there are only cetain places where you can
gather information, of course anyone that believes only once source is
likely
is likely to be biased.
For the sort of thing we do in my lab that means students should be able to
go to
any source they like on helping them construct their electronics project
there are
100s of them from professionals to hobbyists, the circuit will either work
or it won't
but why restrict a students word to so called authorised sites ?
Dag
> "Dag" <dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com> wrote in message
>> whisky-dave wrote:
>>> It is to show where you got the information from at the time.
>> No it is to let people know where they can find the information in
>> question so they can verify it for themselves.
> So who can verify it for themselves ?
So the person reading your article can verify that the source you cite
actually says what you claim it says. Cites are also handy if you're
not overly familiar with the topic of the article and want to do some
background reading.
> >Nobody cares where
>> exactly you got your particular copy of an article from, they care about
>> being able to find a copy of the same article.
> Well if you tell them via a URL why isn't that good enough ?
Because once a URL starts returning 404 errors (which can happen very
quickly) its becomes useless. Also I might not be able to access that
article via the same URL you used for various reasons. Citing author,
title, journal name, year, volume and page (and URL in addition to all
this if you really want) makes it a lot easier to find.
> If I tell them I have a book with the same article and that book is now out
> of print how do we proceed.
Finding copies of out of print books rarely very hard. Your local
library can no doubt help you.
> Surely it's the information itself that is relevant and
> not where you can find it.
Yes, but how can I access the information if I cannot find it? You need
to tell me where to look, and you should to do so in a way that makes my
life as easy as possible.
> i.e in that if you don;t understand it, then it becomes more important to
> know the source.
You don't cite for your own benefit, but for your readers benefit.
Just because I find something so trivially obvious that it doesn't seem
worth dwelling on, my readers might not. And so it is good to tell them
where they can go for more background information. You should always
cite in such a way that finding the article is as easy as possible, both
now and in the future.
>>> In undergraduate work it is only to find where you got the information.
>> The whole point of university is to learn. Letting your students get away
>> with doing something completely wrong with telling them that it is
>> incorrect just because "undergraduate work is never important anyway" is
>> doing your students a huge disservice.
>
> Insisting they only point to your particular source in your book is also
> wrong.
Indeed. And no one (other than the voices in your head) have said that
that is in any way correct or a good idea.
> Education isn;t just about agreeing with your peers,
Exactly, but you have know what your peers actually think before you can
disagree with them. Doing like you do and disagreeing with someone over
a position they never actually held just makes you look a fool.
Citing someone is not the same as agreeing with them you know. Even
when you want to argue that something is a complete load of bollocks and
the person who wrote it is a moron, you still have to cite it. In fact
I'd say that citing is, if anything, more important when disagreeing
with someone. Now repeat after me, citing does not equal agreeing.
>>>> Citing correctly is a major part of writing academic papers.
>>> The major bit of writing academic papers is that they are correct in what
>>> they state.
>> Even more important than that is the what I write is independently
>> verifiable as correct.
> No that what YOU write is correct not what you copy is correct.
Citing isn't the same as copying you moron. Also if you base your
writings on false assumptions then your ideas probably won't be correct
either, thus the importance on basing your thesis or theory on a solid
foundation. Again what good does it do that what I write happens to be
correct if no one can verify that it is correct.
>> See Fermat's last theorem for what happens when you simply make a statement
>> (which happened to be correct) without proof or argument.
>
> And should pointing to that get you a degree in math ?
Of course not you idiot. What the fuck are you talking about?
>>> If you want to write an acadenmic paper on unifying the 4 forces at the
>>> time of the big bang
>>> and you happen to be say Steven Hawkins there's few cites you can include
>>> you really have to think for yourself.
>> A) most of us aren't Stephen Hawking, and are humbly forced to stand on
>> the shoulders of the giants that preceded us.
> Yopu still need to know how to stand rather than arse lick.
So you think citing your sources is somehow arse licking? You really
are dumb aren't you?
>> C) where do you get this idea that citing others and thinking for yourself
>> are somehow at odds with each other.
> because if you're restricted to authorative cites and not allowed to think
> for yourself then
> there's no educational,value and no progression.
Again citing involves neither copying nor agreeing you moron. How are
you supposed to progress and educate yourself without looking at what
has been done before. Is everybody supposed to work everything out from
first principels in your world?
>> I have no idea if such data exists or not, nor do I particularly care
>> enough to bother looking it up.
>
> So you're not very good at research then are you.
Why? Because I'm too lazy to look up something that I have no interest
in?
> Surely if yuo wish to prove your point that the hard labour could have any
> effect on reoffending then you should be able to cite such tests or facts
> to prove it,
When did this magically become my point? I never made this point, nor
have I said anything that could indicate me championing this point. I
have no great wish or desire to prove or disprove this point one way or
the other. It simply doesn't interest me enough.
Now if someone where to point to something on the topic I might read it,
but on the whole I really genuinely do not care. Is that clear enough
for you, or are you going to misunderstand this again?
If you recall what originally happened, you dismissed the idea that hard
labour and malnutrition could have an effect of prisoner behavior out of
hand and I pointed out that doing so is bad science. That point I stand
by. As to whether or not it actually has an effect, I neither know nor
care.
> I could say it was because the moon is further awayb
> that it was, or perhaps topically cite global warming as the cause.
Indeed you could. There is nothing stopping you from doing so.
>>> If not then why not, could it be that such data has
>>> been ignored or even faked.
>> I suppose it's possible.
> Then you'd be able to prove it wouldn't you,
Prove what? That is possible to fake or ignore research data? Surely
that's pretty obvious, there have been plenty of well documented cases.
I can fake some research data right now if you want me to, and so can
you no doubt.
As to proving whether or not relevant data actually has been faked or
ignored, that is a harder and more laborious process. One that I have
no interest in undertaking since this is way outside of my field and I
genuinely don't really care about it.
> otherwise your just another
> fuckwit that can't provide cites to back up what you believe.
Why should I have to provide cites to back up everything I believe.
That's just dumb. What if I'm the only person in the whole world to
believe what I believe, who should I cite then? You do realize that
citing something does not, ipso facto, constitute proof that the cited
idea is true right?
You really are confused by this whole citing thing aren't you.
> As I said Hester believ(d) that the debris from whatever came down in
> Roswell
<snip>
And what does any of that have to do with citing in academic publications?
> For the sort of thing we do in my lab that means students should be able to
> go to
> any source they like on helping them construct their electronics project
> there are
> 100s of them from professionals to hobbyists, the circuit will either work
> or it won't
> but why restrict a students word to so called authorised sites ?
Do you realize the differences between your students building a circuit
and publishing original research?
Dag
whisky-dave
"The Sinuous Scintillator of Fascinet" <fasc...@my-deja.com> wrote in
message
news:0c669860-adfb-439e...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 3, 4:46 pm, "H Duffy" <hester_du...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We make
> > them read books, and we provide, free of charge, the books they need to
> > read.
>
> Good gracious - they actually provide books for students at the
> university level over there?!?
>
I'm wondering what level of propaganda is necessary to make someone
believe her students actually read the assigned books, free or not.
>
> How will the textbook publishers ever get away with charging $120 (or
> the equiv. in sterling or euro) for one textbook if the entity making
> purchasing decisions is also the one paying the bill? How do the
> secondhand booksellers get away with selling a used book for $89.95
> and buying it back four months later for $10?
What I want to know is why the studetns get in so mucgh debt when the books
are free and/or why education is so expensive.
>
> Farkin' commies... next thing you know they'll be feeding the
> students!
We already do. In fact the college and students union are very apt at this.
I was asking the staff in the student union why they have put the prices of
food up
3 times since January. (Bottle of Ribena is now £1.20 in the subsidised
union shop
and 99p in supermarkets and local shops) I was told it's because local
shops have
been taking their custom and they have seen reduced taking so have put
prices up to compensate.
The college catering service is now so expensive at £40 minimum that we go
to
Marks and Spencers when we have functions because the 'most expensive
super market food can be delivered to us cheaper than our own catering
service
can make it.
Of course please feel free to do you're own research on this :)
You expect handouts for your $50k a year?
Students are getting more and more uppity all the time.
That's why it's my job to keep them down, if only I could dangle them out of
the 2nd floor window for late submission of coursework. ;-)
whisky-dave
"Dag" <dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com> wrote in message
> whisky-dave wrote:
>> "Dag" <dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ft6ce...@news2.newsguy.com...
>>> Do to that you have to read about what other people have done and then
>>> work forward from that.
>> The second use of the internet was to connect universities together to
>> help
>> research rather than hinder it by waiting for books to be published.
>
> Yes, and? What does that have to do with anything we are discussing.
Where you may get information from.
You should be allowed to get it from anywhere.
> Some times I get the feeling you just ignore what people say and make up
> your arguments that you think they made and arguing against that rather
> than what was actually said. A little bit like arguing with the voices in
> your head, but more public and more annoying.
well then why not prove it.
it's neither you nor I that read the sherriff as saying he has fouind a cure
for crime,
from the acutal words of he wanted to stop reoffending.
>>> If everybody was to do start from zero and try to rediscover everything
>>> for themselves nothing would ever get done.
>> And it happens a lot faster via on line.
>
> Which is why I in several places spoke in favour of using the Internet for
> searching for articles.
And just about anything, which is what I've been saying why restrict
material to so
called authorised sources.
>>> Few things make you look as silly in academic circles as talking about
>>> this great new theory to you just discovered, only to find out that it
>>> has been common knowledge in the field for the past 70 years.
>>
>> Nowadays papers and jounals can appear on-ine long before they appear in
>> print,
>
> Which is why I think the Internet is great for research and journal
> publication.
And of course for generally getting information.
> In fact I said so in many many places, and that has never been the issue.
> Again have you even read anything I've written? My point is not and never
> has been print vs. on-line. What we have been talking about is a)
> per-reviewed journal article vs. random web pages and citing information
> in a way that makes easy for future readers to find vs. citing a less
> permanent URLs. See again the bit about making up other peoples arguments
> and arguing against those instead of what was actually said.
I do not see the obsession with peer-reviewed articles, if the student or
person
cites an artcle for me it's depends on the artcle and why it is cited rather
than who else agrees with it. If all a student has to do is agree with their
peers
then I think that's a little sad.
whisky-dave
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> news:ftdhj6$9mq$1@qmul...
>>
>> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:65n5vdF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> That's right; and therefore, the students don't have to buy them.
>> The college does NOT buy enough books for every student.
>
> It doesn't buy enough of every book for each student to have one, no. But
> as I've said, they don't need one of every book; they simply need to read
> _some_ books, and usually, the information they need will appear in
> several different books, so it is entirely possible for all the students
> to find exactly what they need, in the library.
Surely their ability should be checked rather than anything else.
>Apart from anything else, a lot of what they need will be in journal
>articles, and most libraries don't let you take journals out; instead, you
>take a photocopy of the article you need, which means every member of the
>class can get a copy.
yes and gettign a copy doesn't make you clever even agreeing with what it
says
doesn't make you clever, I'm sure there was a journal that gave the size of
your
head as a measure of intelligence. I'm sure there was a time when it was
thought that
women shouldn't go to universities ands I'm sure there must have been
supporting
materials otherwise why would have it been supported at the time.
>
>>> Thus, on pretty much every point you've tried to make on this issue, you
>>> were wrong.
>>> All clear now?
>> No you've either got it wrong or at best misunderstood.
>> Niether colleges/univercities or public libraies ccarry 100 copies of the
>> same book.
>
> And no-one has claimed that they do.
So what would a student do if he is recommended to buy a particular book for
a course
and he can;t get it from the library, when I faced this problem I brought
the book,
because the course organiser followed this books examples and at the end of
the lecture he'd say do exercises on pages 45-50.
>
> And if any class ever only recommended one book, that would indeed be an
> issue. However, since that's never the case, it's not an issue; instead,
> any given lecturer will recommend at least half a dozen books, and often
> some journal articles as well (if it's for a specific topic, rather than a
> more general course-book), any of which will give the students the
> ifnromation they need. They are also allowed, nay, encouraged, to go and
> do their own research and find other reputable sources of information on
> the same topic.
There you're back to the same problem for reputable.
Reputable according to who ?
>>> Because online sources tend to be unreliable; they may have the correct
>>> information, but they may have misinformation too. Since websites aren't
>>> peer-reviewed in the same way that books and journal articles are,
>>> they're fundamentally unreliable.
>> That depends on what you're using them for.
>
> And since we're talking about using them for academic work, you're going
> off ona tangent again.
well you never found a reputable cite to prove that Galileo, all you found
were
catholic references to what was said at the time.
>> If all you have to do is copy someone else's work
>
> But we're not talking about that, so it's irrelevant.
But if you wants facts or the truth why leave any stone unturned.
>>>bung in a couple fo keywords, grab the first couple of pages that include
>>>those words. With a book, you're likely to need to read more to find what
>>>you need, and thus you'll learn more, and take in more of the context,
>>>resulting ina better understanding of the topic.
>>
>> But perhaps you'll also miss alot of what is actually available .
>
> Yes. No student is expected to read _all_ the available information.
But they are usually expected to read more than one source, why would that
be
if you've found your reputable source.
>>> No, actually, it isn't; an awfyul lot of academic work is about
>>> opinions,
>> Isn't everyone allowed opinions.
> Another tangent; where is there any indication that anyone thinks that
> people aren't allowed opinions?
If you're only allowed to cite certain books or passages.
You should be allowed to listen to anyones opinions.
>>> not "facts and truth", because we simply don't have access to all the
>>> "facts and truth"
>> Who's we.
>
> The human race.
But you won't allow the human race a say it has to be from those sources you
claim are reputable. Of course asking the police about crime what they
nearly always say
is there is a reduction in reported crime. If you really want to know about
crime you
have to go beyond the so called reputable sources you're used to.
>
>>>. So, for example, students might be asked to write an essay comparing
>>>and contrasting two theroetical approaches to a particular subject. There
>>>will be some factual material in that essay, but some of it will also be
>>>about opinions.
>> And in that case we'd still be the centre of the universe, because only
>> certain peoples
>> opinions would be allowed to be heard and if you had your own or followed
>> anyone else's
>> then you'd fail the course or at worst be locked up for life or killed is
>> that it .
>
> Are you aware that what you've just said is a non sequitur? You seem to be
> reading something completely separate from what I've actually said. You
> seem to think I'm saying that students must follow the party line, and
> only express certain opinions which have the official rubber-stamp on
> them.
Isn't that what you mean by reputable sources, who decides on how reputable
they are ?
> Actually, I've said no such thing. So who are you replying to, and what
> did they say?
Who did you decide were a reputable source for working out what fell
to the ground in Roswell ?
>
>>> (Obviously this is not true in all subjects; a maths undergraduate is
>>> not going to have to think very much about opinions, for example.)
>>
>> In fact all subjects if you're referring to true education.
>> Even Darwin believed in God the problem was what he saw with his eyes
>> didn't match the facts of the time, if all he would have been allowed to
>> do was cite
>> his peers where would we be now.
>> Your trouble is you don;t realise education is about advancement rather
>> than stagnation.
>
> Do you realise that research is one of the things I do for a living? Like,
> new research, finding out new stuff?
And yuo don;t find NEW stuff by quoting old cites.
> You really have absolutely no conception of other people, do you? You've
> got this weird picture of what you _think_ I am, what what you think I
> believe,
I know what you believe you've proved that time and time again.
> and it doesn't matter than your view of my and my beliefs is entirely
> worng, and that it goes against all the evidence; you've got your opinion,
> and you can't or won't change it.
I knew your view on Roswell, and the Bible and santorini and the sheriff
that you'vesaid has claime d to find a cure for crime.
>
> Mind you, you've missed something pretty obvious; it's generally not
> students who come up with new stuff. It's the teachers themselves.
Not really,
>This is because most students don't have the skills or undestanding needed
>in order to be innovative and to create new research; that's why they're
>students. They need to learn the state of the Science, and they need to
>learn research skills. Once they've learned that, and learned about the
>research that has already been done, they can become proficient, and they
>can do their own research, and find out new stuff.
Stuff that their teachers don't know about ?
How can yuo discover soething new if your teachers already know about it.
>But in general, it's the teachers, who are also reserachers, who do the
>innovative stuff. My research, for example, brings together a couple of
>different areas which haven't really been brought together before. I'm
>going to be contradicting some of the "stuff we all know", and hopefully
>supporting some other work that disagrees with the "stuff we all know".
Do you considerer yourself a teacher ?
> The other error you're making, of course, is that you seem to be assuming
> there is A Party Line. There isn't; there are lots and lots of different
> people with widely differing opinions on The Way It Is. So even if we
> wanted to teach our students The Party Line (which we don't), we couldn't,
> because there isn't one. All we can do is teach them about the research
> and theories that already exist,a nd try to give them the cognitive and
> research tools to understand the theories and the research, and to do more
> researchj to add more evidence to the debate.
But what of your peers, what if they say your wrong.
> Mind you, why I'm bothering to tell you any of this, I don't know; you'll
> ignore it all and go back to your bridge where you can throw turds at
> other people and accuse them of being unenlightened and unsophisticated.
Who's the unenlighted one regarding Galileo and Roswell, and even in your
own area you
stated that children can't lie or deceive before the age of about 4 months
but I heard
an interview where a research had written a paper proving that children as
young
as 4 months can learn to lie and deceive, or course all you were interested
in was the
grammatical content rather than what was done.
Even when we discussed plagiarism all you new was that it was about copying
text which
isn;t really true anyway.
Dag
> "Dag" <dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com> wrote in message
> news:fte2j...@news2.newsguy.com...
>> whisky-dave wrote:
>>> "Dag" <dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ft6ce...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>
>>>> Do to that you have to read about what other people have done and then
>>>> work forward from that.
>>> The second use of the internet was to connect universities together to
>>> help
>>> research rather than hinder it by waiting for books to be published.
>> Yes, and? What does that have to do with anything we are discussing.
> Where you may get information from.
> You should be allowed to get it from anywhere.
Of course you are allowed to get information from anywhere. You just
have to realize and take into account that some information is more
reliable than other information. Simply quoting a random web page as
truth show that you have failed to take that into account.
> it's neither you nor I that read the sherriff as saying he has fouind a cure
> for crime, from the acutal words of he wanted to stop reoffending.
You really need to go back to the original post in question and work on
your reading comprehension. You seem to misunderstand what people are
saying to you far too often.
>>>> If everybody was to do start from zero and try to rediscover everything
>>>> for themselves nothing would ever get done.
>>> And it happens a lot faster via on line.
>> Which is why I in several places spoke in favour of using the Internet for
>> searching for articles.
>
> And just about anything, which is what I've been saying why restrict
> material to so
> called authorised sources.
It's got nothing to do with authorized vs. unauthorized. It's about
reliable vs unreliable. On the whole peer-reviewed papers are more
reliable than random web pages.
>> Again have you even read anything I've written? My point is not and never
>> has been print vs. on-line. What we have been talking about is a)
>> per-reviewed journal article vs. random web pages and citing information
>> in a way that makes easy for future readers to find vs. citing a less
>> permanent URLs. See again the bit about making up other peoples arguments
>> and arguing against those instead of what was actually said.
>
> I do not see the obsession with peer-reviewed articles,
Perhaps that is because you are not an academic or a researcher. If you
where, perhaps you would.
> if the student or
> person
> cites an artcle for me it's depends on the artcle and why it is cited rather
> than who else agrees with it.
Getting an article accepted into a peer-reviewed journal does not in any
way indicate that the person who reviewed it agrees with what you wrote.
All it says is that your article is reasonably well written, covers a
novel or interesting topic, meets the basic standards of research
quality in the field and that someone skilled in the field couldn't find
any errors. You seem to be obsessed with the concepts of 'agree' and
'disagree', they're not nearly as important in this discussion as you
seem to think they are.
> If all a student has to do is agree with their peers
> then I think that's a little sad.
What make you think that people only cite things they agree with? Where
did you get the idea that there was some sort of equivalence between
citing and agreeing? Nobody cares if you agree or disagree, they care
that your argument is sound and stands on a sound foundation. Trust me,
if someone submitted a paper consisting of nothing more than "I agree
with what has already been said" it would be soundly rejected.
Dag
H Duffy
"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
>
> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:65v6b2F...@mid.individual.net...
>> as I've said, they don't need one of every book; they simply need to read
>> _some_ books, and usually, the information they need will appear in
>> several different books, so it is entirely possible for all the students
>> to find exactly what they need, in the library.
> Or any other place on the planet, so why restrict them ?
We don't restrict them in terms of where they can find their sources; we
simply expect them to use, and cite, reliable sources. And to make that
easier for them, and to ensure that they don't have to pay for their
reliable sources if they don't want to, we provide them with free access to
a library, which has lots of reliable sources in it.
> Surely their ability should be checked rather than anything else.
Well, part of "ability" is the ability to find and use and cite reliable
sources, and to distinguish between reliable sources (like peer-reviewed
journals) and unreliable sources (like Wikipedia, religious websites, and so
on).
>>Apart from anything else, a lot of what they need will be in journal
>>articles, and most libraries don't let you take journals out; instead, you
>>take a photocopy of the article you need, which means every member of the
>>class can get a copy.
> yes and gettign a copy doesn't make you clever even agreeing with what it
> says
> doesn't make you clever,
No, absolutely; in fact, quite often it's _disagreeing_ with it that
demonstrates some original thought and uderstanding. But it's a lot more
useful to disagree (or agree, either way) with a reputable, reliable source
than with some nutjob who has put up a bunch of inaccurate nonsense as
propaganda on a website.
I'm sure there was a journal that gave the size of
> your
> head as a measure of intelligence. I'm sure there was a time when it was
> thought that
> women shouldn't go to universities ands I'm sure there must have been
> supporting
> materials otherwise why would have it been supported at the time.
Right. And the way those things changed is that people read _those_
journals, and then came up with intelligent refutations. If they hadn't
bothered to read them, they couldn't have pointed out why they were wrong,
and no progress would have been made.
>> And no-one has claimed that they do.
> So what would a student do if he is recommended to buy a particular book
> for a course
> and he can;t get it from the library, when I faced this problem I brought
> the book,
Well, if a student is going to be using the same book a lot, then sometimes
buying it is the best option; in that case, it's quite often best to get it
second hand, as it's cheaper that way.
Buyt yes, students sometimes have to buy books. That's one of the downsides
of being a student.
>> And if any class ever only recommended one book, that would indeed be an
>> issue. However, since that's never the case, it's not an issue; instead,
>> any given lecturer will recommend at least half a dozen books, and often
>> some journal articles as well (if it's for a specific topic, rather than
>> a more general course-book), any of which will give the students the
>> ifnromation they need. They are also allowed, nay, encouraged, to go and
>> do their own research and find other reputable sources of information on
>> the same topic.
> There you're back to the same problem for reputable.
> Reputable according to who ?
Well, peer-reviewed journals are onsidered reputable. Books published by
academic publishers (CUP, OUP, Sage, etc) are generally considered
reputable. The reason for that is that the peer reviewers have no vested
interest in a given article being published; if they don't think it's good,
they'll turn it down, even if it agrees with what they're saying. If they
think it's a good article, they'll recommend it for publication, even if
they disagree with it. In fact, quite often, they'll be glad of an articule
they disagree with, because it gives them something to write about.
Academic publishers aren't biased, because they want to maintain their good
reputation, and if they start publishing any old nonsense, people will stop
taking them seriously.
>> And since we're talking about using them for academic work, you're going
>> off ona tangent again.
>
> well you never found a reputable cite to prove that Galileo, all you found
> were
> catholic references to what was said at the time.
No, Dave, I didn't; you _assumed_ that any source that supported what I'd
said was Catholic, but you were actually entirely wrong about that.
>
>>> If all you have to do is copy someone else's work
>>
>> But we're not talking about that, so it's irrelevant.
>
> But if you wants facts or the truth why leave any stone unturned.
Because some stones quite obviously don't have any facts or truth under
them, and are thus not worth turning.
For example, I'm reading various stuff on evolutionary psychology at the
moment. I _could_ go and read some creationist websites, because they
mention evolution. But would there be any point? No, of course not, because
they don't actually have anything useful or informative to say about
evolution. So instead, I'll stick to scientific articles in reputable
journals, and scientific books published by reputable publishers.
>> Yes. No student is expected to read _all_ the available information.
> But they are usually expected to read more than one source, why would that
> be
> if you've found your reputable source.
Because even a reputable source doesn't have access to Absolute Truth; quite
often, we want them to look at two opposing views of the same issue, and try
to understand the evidence behind each view.
>> Another tangent; where is there any indication that anyone thinks that
>> people aren't allowed opinions?
>
>
>
> If you're only allowed to cite certain books or passages.
That doesn't mean you cna't have an opinion; it just means that, for
example, when talking about evolutionary psychology, the Creationist
viewpoint is just not helpful.
> You should be allowed to listen to anyones opinions.
Yes, and in your spare time, you can, but some opinions just don't inform
the debate at all, and are thus a waste of time.
>>>> not "facts and truth", because we simply don't have access to all the
>>>> "facts and truth"
>>> Who's we.
>>
>> The human race.
>
> But you won't allow the human race a say it has to be from those sources
> you
> claim are reputable.
That's right; some members of the human race know enough about a given
subject that their opinions are useful and informative. Some don't.
Of course asking the police about crime what they
> nearly always say
> is there is a reduction in reported crime. If you really want to know
> about crime you
> have to go beyond the so called reputable sources you're used to.
*heh* What, and ask some Sherriff in America who claims to have reduced
recidivism by 70% by painting the prison pink? Exactly how far beyond that
source did _you_ go before accepting his story, Dave? What evidence did you
look at to support what he said?
>> Are you aware that what you've just said is a non sequitur? You seem to
>> be reading something completely separate from what I've actually said.
>> You seem to think I'm saying that students must follow the party line,
>> and only express certain opinions which have the official rubber-stamp on
>> them.
> Isn't that what you mean by reputable sources,
No, it really isn't. Whether a source is reputable or not doesn't depend on
which opinions they express, it depends on whether they actually provide
reliable, valid evidence for their opinions. If a Creationist came up with
some solid _proof_ that the planet is only 6,000 years old, and could show
the whole research process, then their views would be worth listening to. If
they say "This is how it is because it just is", it doesn't matter whether
they're espousing creationism or evolution; they're not a good source.
In fact, if Steven Hawking had said "The universe is like it is just because
of Physics, and that's it", no-one would have listened to him. He became the
leading light in his field by providing good solid evidence to prove his
points.
Similarly, if Darwin had said "Evolution is the one true path and anyone who
doesn't believe in it is an infidel", he wouldn't be counted as one of the
Fathers of Modern Science. He's reputable because he provided logical,
evidence-based proof of his theories.
>> Actually, I've said no such thing. So who are you replying to, and what
>> did they say?
>
> Who did you decide were a reputable source for working out what fell
> to the ground in Roswell ?
I don't know of any reputable sources, and thus I don't have a strong
opinion on what it was. It seems likely that it was a spy balloon of some
sort, but without seeing actual evidence, I can't draw a conclusion.
>> Do you realise that research is one of the things I do for a living?
>> Like, new research, finding out new stuff?
> And yuo don;t find NEW stuff by quoting old cites.
Acually, yes, you do; or rather, in order to find new stuff, you have to
understand the old stuff first. Otherwise your "new" stuff might just be old
stuff that someone has already done, mightn't it? I mean, there'd be no
point in an astrophysicist _now_ saying "Hold on chaps; I think I've figured
it out! The planets don't revolve around the Earth, they go round the sun!
Hah! How's that for new research!".
In order to generate _new_ knowledge, you have to understand the state of
the science as it is, and that involves reading old stuff, so that you're
not just reinventing the wheel.
>
>> You really have absolutely no conception of other people, do you? You've
>> got this weird picture of what you _think_ I am, what what you think I
>> believe,
> I know what you believe you've proved that time and time again.
But you don't, Dave; pretty much _every_ time you say what you think I
believe, you get it wrong. Does that not tell you something about your
perceptions?
>
>> and it doesn't matter than your view of my and my beliefs is entirely
>> worng, and that it goes against all the evidence; you've got your
>> opinion, and you can't or won't change it.
> I knew your view on Roswell, and the Bible and santorini and the sheriff
> that you'vesaid has claime d to find a cure for crime.
No, Dave, you don't. For example, you've repeatedly accused me of believing
that the Bible is true. I don't. You're just wrong about what my opinions
are. And even though you've been told that, over and over again, you seem to
be incapable of adjusting your view; that is the sign of a very very limited
intelligence.
>> Mind you, you've missed something pretty obvious; it's generally not
>> students who come up with new stuff. It's the teachers themselves.
> Not really,
Yes, really; when was the last time you heard of an undergraduate putting
out any rally ground-breaking work?
>
>>This is because most students don't have the skills or undestanding needed
>>in order to be innovative and to create new research; that's why they're
>>students. They need to learn the state of the Science, and they need to
>>learn research skills. Once they've learned that, and learned about the
>>research that has already been done, they can become proficient, and they
>>can do their own research, and find out new stuff.
> Stuff that their teachers don't know about ?
> How can yuo discover soething new if your teachers already know about it.
That question makes no sense. I think the problem here is that you simply
don't have the first beginning of an understanding of how research works, or
even what it _is_, and thus this conversation is just way over your head.
>
>>But in general, it's the teachers, who are also reserachers, who do the
>>innovative stuff. My research, for example, brings together a couple of
>>different areas which haven't really been brought together before. I'm
>>going to be contradicting some of the "stuff we all know", and hopefully
>>supporting some other work that disagrees with the "stuff we all know".
> Do you considerer yourself a teacher ?
Yes, and also a student, although not an undergraduate student.
>> The other error you're making, of course, is that you seem to be assuming
>> there is A Party Line. There isn't; there are lots and lots of different
>> people with widely differing opinions on The Way It Is. So even if we
>> wanted to teach our students The Party Line (which we don't), we
>> couldn't, because there isn't one. All we can do is teach them about the
>> research and theories that already exist,a nd try to give them the
>> cognitive and research tools to understand the theories and the research,
>> and to do more researchj to add more evidence to the debate.
> But what of your peers, what if they say your wrong.
Then that will lead to more intellectual debate, which is a good thing. And
I have absolutely no doubt that some of them _will_ say I'm wrong, or at
least will express an opinion which is in opposition to mine.
>> Mind you, why I'm bothering to tell you any of this, I don't know; you'll
>> ignore it all and go back to your bridge where you can throw turds at
>> other people and accuse them of being unenlightened and unsophisticated.
>
> Who's the unenlighted one regarding Galileo and Roswell,
*heh8 See, all you mean here is that anyone who doesn't absolutely agree
with you must be unenlightened.
This is amusing, because that's precisely the attitude you're attributing to
Academia. In fact, Academia doesn't have that attitude, but you do. Surely
even you can see the irony in that?
and even in your
> own area you
> stated that children can't lie or deceive before the age of about 4 months
> but I heard
> an interview where a research had written a paper proving that children as
> young
> as 4 months can learn to lie and deceive, or course all you were
> interested in was the
> grammatical content rather than what was done.
No, I was interested in what was done, I just didn't agree with the
conlcusions, because tyhey make certain blatantly false assumptions.
Or rather, the newspaper report you linked to included those assumptions;
whether they were included in the original research, I don't know. I suspect
they weren't.
H
whisky-dave
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> news:ftg5kc$5dq$1@qmul...
>>
>> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:65v6b2F...@mid.individual.net...
>> Or any other place on the planet, so why restrict them ?
>
> We don't restrict them in terms of where they can find their sources; we
> simply expect them to use, and cite, reliable sources. And to make that
> easier for them, and to ensure that they don't have to pay for their
> reliable sources if they don't want to, we provide them with free access
> to a library, which has lots of reliable sources in it.
But not the only source of course because few libraries contain every book
ever written
>
>> Surely their ability should be checked rather than anything else.
>
> Well, part of "ability" is the ability to find and use and cite reliable
> sources,
Only the only reliable source for what happened at Roswell was the US
government
or air force and we know they lied. I do NOT call that a reliable source.
I can fully understand why they lied but for me that doesn't make them any
more reliable
than the speed camera that can't provide a picture of my friend speeding al
it can
do is record is number plate and issue a ticket.
>and to distinguish between reliable sources (like peer-reviewed
> journals) and unreliable sources (like Wikipedia, religious websites, and
> so on).
well wiki does cite some sources.
>> yes and gettign a copy doesn't make you clever even agreeing with what it
>> says
>> doesn't make you clever,
>
> No, absolutely; in fact, quite often it's _disagreeing_ with it that
> demonstrates some original thought and uderstanding. But it's a lot more
> useful to disagree (or agree, either way) with a reputable, reliable
> source than with some nutjob who has put up a bunch of inaccurate nonsense
> as propaganda on a website.
Yep but how do you prove it. How can you tell a nut job from an official
liar
with a government run website to back them up, and lots of people also agree
with it
because if they don;t they won't have a job.
> I'm sure there was a journal that gave the size of
>> your
>> head as a measure of intelligence. I'm sure there was a time when it was
>> thought that
>> women shouldn't go to universities ands I'm sure there must have been
>> supporting
>> materials otherwise why would have it been supported at the time.
>
> Right. And the way those things changed is that people read _those_
> journals, and then came up with intelligent refutations. If they hadn't
> bothered to read them, they couldn't have pointed out why they were wrong,
> and no progress would have been made.
But proving them wrong is where the problem lies especially when you have so
many agreeing with the original material because they think it makes them
look clever.
>
>>> And since we're talking about using them for academic work, you're going
>>> off ona tangent again.
>>
>> well you never found a reputable cite to prove that Galileo, all you
>> found were
>> catholic references to what was said at the time.
>
> No, Dave, I didn't; you _assumed_ that any source that supported what I'd
> said was Catholic, but you were actually entirely wrong about that.
But you never proved the point though did you, just found the same thing
that
was said some 400 years ago. And when someone else came along and agreed
with me you called them a fuckwit or something similar the same when
someelse said that
there was NO evidence that the original script of the Bible referred to Mary
as a virgin,
the original script stated she was a young woman.
There was a program on the other night about Brutus and that the idea that
he
betrayed Jesus was another mistranslation I've believed that for years or
rather
I couldn't see how Judas could have been such a bad person for 'shopping'
Jesus to the authorities Because like in star trek if you look at the bigger
time scale
you'd realise that without Judas doing what he did then Jesus might never
have been crucified and have died for our sins.
So inteligence over the peer reviewed and authorised KJV Bible.
Whether or not the translators lied or just mistranslated or perhaps mis
quoted as
you would, might never be known, but it was wrong despite 400+ years.
Just because more than a handfull of peole agree with something doesn't make
it true.
> For example, I'm reading various stuff on evolutionary psychology at the
> moment. I _could_ go and read some creationist websites,
You should do, there really funny, much funnier than the simpsons.
>because they
> mention evolution. But would there be any point? No, of course not,
> because they don't actually have anything useful or informative to say
> about evolution.
Well they may have done in the past in fact in the past you'd have had to
agree with them
to have any career prospects or to be thought of as clever or educated.
The peers of those times knew what was right .
>or So instead, I'll stick to scientific articles in reputable journals,
>and scientific books published by reputable publishers.
It doesn't always make them right though, we know things change with the
times
and 500 odd years ago you'd be locked up for what yuo believe.
We still don;t know the real truth did we originate on Earth or was life
brought here
via a meteorite.
>>> Yes. No student is expected to read _all_ the available information.
>> But they are usually expected to read more than one source, why would
>> that be
>> if you've found your reputable source.
>
> Because even a reputable source doesn't have access to Absolute Truth;
> quite often, we want them to look at two opposing views of the same issue,
> and try to understand the evidence behind each view.
Yes, so why not let them go to a creationist website to see the other side
of the coin
and let them compare, why not ? If they believe in creationism let them.
I agree that creationism is wrong I should I say by looking at various
evidence
none of which comes from peer reviewed journals I think they are wrong.
But if a student wishes to support that POV then let them, when exam time
comes
then they'll fail, oh I get it now the reason you don;t want them to read so
called unreputable sources is because of low marks and low marks make you
look like and bad teacher the the 'school or university will get a low pass
rate
that means a lower overall grade which tend to attract les research
therefore less
research money less funding etc...
Don;t be afraid of it we have the same sort of thing here, but it's a little
more subtle,
we give them coursework and lab deadlines with the threat of reduced marks
should they be late, but it's only a threat marks aren;t deducted as it'll
lower the class
average. As one academic told me results are so low if we lower them any
more
then we;ll have a 70% failure rate. As for plagerism well as you know if you
don;t fidn it
it doesn;t exist. Which can be very convient.
>> You should be allowed to listen to anyones opinions.
>
> Yes, and in your spare time, you can, but some opinions just don't inform
> the debate at all, and are thus a waste of time.
In your opinion.
When I heard that man didn't really land on the moon I wanted to see the
evidence
not that we did, because that's virtually impossible to do, but I wanted
to see the evidence that those that don;t believe man has been to the moon
was like, from that I decide they are wrong, because or their own rather
inadequate evidence rather than what NASA has said.
Although there are still some strange things that NASA haven't answered they
seemed
rather insignificant to me. So my judgment comes form the evidence NASA
opponents
have said rather than what NASA has said.
You should always look at both sides rather than just the one you have been
instructed to believe is reputable, think for yourself.
>>>>> not "facts and truth", because we simply don't have access to all the
>>>>> "facts and truth"
>>>> Who's we.
>>>
>>> The human race.
>>
>> But you won't allow the human race a say it has to be from those sources
>> you
>> claim are reputable.
>
> That's right; some members of the human race know enough about a given
> subject that their opinions are useful and informative. Some don't.
But how can you judge without listening to both sides.
You had this problem a few times now from the Bible to Roswell
from Galileo to student stats.
>> have to go beyond the so called reputable sources you're used to.
>
> *heh* What, and ask some Sherriff in America who claims to have reduced
> recidivism by 70% by painting the prison pink? Exactly how far beyond that
> source did _you_ go before accepting his story, Dave? What evidence did
> you look at to support what he said?
I looked at other sites which discuss the colour pink.
I can't proved what he said but as with even reputable sites I don;t know
whether
the tests were done on students correctly and whether or not I believe they
act the same as adults is another point. I haven't seen the questionnaires
or how they
were answered all I've see are that I've been told are the results is that
really proof.
Considering I've been lied about on states and I have know states to be
faked more
times than they have been factual.
>>> You seem to think I'm saying that students must follow the party line,
>>> and only express certain opinions which have the official rubber-stamp
>>> on them.
>> Isn't that what you mean by reputable sources,
>
> No, it really isn't. Whether a source is reputable or not doesn't depend
> on which opinions they express, it depends on whether they actually
> provide reliable, valid evidence for their opinions.
Do you truly believe that the male propensity to rape is the same as a
students propensity to rape is.
i.e to you believe that those between eh ages of 17-29 have the same
responses as males
between the ages of 14 to 90 or older.
Whether you ask them their favourite colour, drink, sport, sexual position
or anything else.
>If a Creationist came up with some solid _proof_ that the planet is only
>6,000 years old, and could show the whole research process, then their
>views would be worth listening to.
But what if someone took a piece of the Turin shroud to prove it is only 300
years old or whatever because the part they took was a section that had been
repaired 300 years ago.
For me I don;t have any idea whether or not it's the shroud of Christ all
I'd
want is them to take a bit of original cloth from it and test than rather
than a
corner that was repaired after the fire.
> Similarly, if Darwin had said "Evolution is the one true path and anyone
> who doesn't believe in it is an infidel", he wouldn't be counted as one of
> the Fathers of Modern Science. He's reputable because he provided logical,
> evidence-based proof of his theories.
For me he changed his mind as he didn't;t really believe in what he found
but the evidence was so overwhelming that he changed his mind that is a true
researcher and scientist judging on evidence that HE found rather than what
someone else has told him to believe rightfully or wrongfully.
>> Who did you decide were a reputable source for working out what fell
>> to the ground in Roswell ?
You said it was a weather ballon because that's what they said it was.
>
> I don't know of any reputable sources, and thus I don't have a strong
> opinion on what it was. It seems likely that it was a spy balloon of some
> sort, but without seeing actual evidence, I can't draw a conclusion.
It seemed starnge that it took 590 years before someone changed it from
weather ballon to spy ballon, considering there >
> stuff that someone has already done, mightn't it? I mean, there'd be no
> point in an astrophysicist _now_ saying "Hold on chaps; I think I've
> figured it out! The planets don't revolve around the Earth, they go round
> the sun! Hah! How's that for new research!".
But what happens when you lock that person up and threaten to kill him he he
contioues
to tell the trurth ?
> In order to generate _new_ knowledge, you have to understand the state of
> the science as it is, and that involves reading old stuff, so that you're
> not just reinventing the wheel.
Nothing wrong with that if the original wheel is wonky.
Sometimes starting from scratch is the best ioption rather than study
previous lies.
>
>>
>>> and it doesn't matter than your view of my and my beliefs is entirely
>>> worng, and that it goes against all the evidence; you've got your
>>> opinion, and you can't or won't change it.
>> I knew your view on Roswell, and the Bible and santorini and the sheriff
>> that you'vesaid has claime d to find a cure for crime.
>
> No, Dave, you don't. For example, you've repeatedly accused me of
> believing that the Bible is true.
I never said that.
>>> Mind you, you've missed something pretty obvious; it's generally not
>>> students who come up with new stuff. It's the teachers themselves.
>> Not really,
>
> Yes, really; when was the last time you heard of an undergraduate putting
> out any rally ground-breaking work?
well when the 11 or 13 yearold crack some maths problem
>
>
>>> Mind you, why I'm bothering to tell you any of this, I don't know;
>>> you'll ignore it all and go back to your bridge where you can throw
>>> turds at other people and accuse them of being unenlightened and
>>> unsophisticated.
>>
>> Who's the unenlighted one regarding Galileo and Roswell,
>
> *heh8 See, all you mean here is that anyone who doesn't absolutely agree
> with you must be unenlightened.
> This is amusing, because that's precisely the attitude you're attributing
> to Academia. In fact, Academia doesn't have that attitude, but you do.
> Surely even you can see the irony in that?
You point about the Bible was that is was authorised and what was it 52
scholars
of teh time translated it so they got it right.
Seems little evidence of that though. Theybtranslated what they were tiold
to
rather than the actual words, they were told to translate a good story.
>
> No, I was interested in what was done, I just didn't agree with the
> conlcusions, because tyhey make certain blatantly false assumptions.
> Or rather, the newspaper report you linked to included those assumptions;
> whether they were included in the original research, I don't know. I
> suspect they weren't.
The journals out there it was written at the time go check it out.
whisky-dave
"Dag" <dag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ftg0s...@news4.newsguy.com...
> whisky-dave wrote:
>> "Dag" <dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:fte4s...@news2.newsguy.com...
>>> whisky-dave wrote:
>
>>>> It is to show where you got the information from at the time.
>>> No it is to let people know where they can find the information in
>>> question so they can verify it for themselves.
>> So who can verify it for themselves ?
>
> So the person reading your article can verify that the source you cite
> actually says what you claim it says. Cites are also handy if you're not
> overly familiar with the topic of the article and want to do some
> background reading.
having a psychological effect on people, I can see no reason why criminals
should be excluded. But then again you suggested that hard labour could be
the cause
of their change in behaviour but I found no significant evidence of that
other than
fuckwits like me suggesting such stupid ideas as the dead don;t reoffend.
All articles on reoffending ignore death.
>
>> >Nobody cares where
>>> exactly you got your particular copy of an article from, they care about
>>> being able to find a copy of the same article.
>> Well if you tell them via a URL why isn't that good enough ?
>
> Because once a URL starts returning 404 errors (which can happen very
> quickly) its becomes useless.
Yes so. If a child sex site is pulled down that doesn;t mean it never
existed.
When Hester said dhe like to see a cetain picture that she said didn;t exist
the owner no longer had the site so the picture wasn;t there does that mean
it
never existed ?
> Also I might not be able to access that article via the same URL you used
> for various reasons. Citing author, title, journal name, year, volume and
> page (and URL in addition to all this if you really want) makes it a lot
> easier to find.
Yes it does, but ease of finding it is hardly relivant to it's factual
content.
>> If I tell them I have a book with the same article and that book is now
>> out of print how do we proceed.
>
> Finding copies of out of print books rarely very hard. Your local library
> can no doubt help you.
But it doesn;t make them correct does it.
You'd have thought you'd be able to find evidence of whether or not Galileo
took the piss out of the Pope and that is why he was imprisoned or not
wouldn't you.
Of course if everyword is written by the catholic press of the time then I'm
not sure
you'd ever find the truth.
>
>> Surely it's the information itself that is relevant and not where you can
>> find it.
>
> Yes, but how can I access the information if I cannot find it?
The same way you find out if a weatehr ballon UFO or spy ballon crashed in
Roswell
> You need to tell me where to look, and you should to do so in a way that
> makes my life as easy as possible.
Well take the picture I said I saw ion-line of Hester and IIRC David D.
How can I prove anythijng existed, well if you loko at the NG post of teh
time when the URL was put up,
no one at the time including Hester said there's nothing there or it's a 404
error.
Why not I wonder. Surely netgoths looking at the post would point out if teh
link
didn't exist
>> i.e in that if you don;t understand it, then it becomes more important to
>> know the source.
>
> You don't cite for your own benefit, but for your readers benefit.
I do for both as Hester has often mis-quoted what I and websites have said,
it make it easier to check up, on that appear to be why Hester deletes links
I cite when she quotes from them.
i,.e the sheriff saying he's found a cure for crime.
> Just because I find something so trivially obvious that it doesn't seem
> worth dwelling on, my readers might not. And so it is good to tell them
> where they can go for more background information. You should always cite
> in such a way that finding the article is as easy as possible, both now
> and in the future.
I agree but it's not always possible.
The parents of a student wanted to collect his work, I collected it together
and found some work that stated he was guilty of plagerism and got 2.5 out
of 14 for it.
Other work he got 12/20 and 14/20 on his coursewrok this studetn was awarded
a 1st class houours, Iw as told to destroy all hsi work but his final report
which never
have the marks but in them. But I was also told his parents donated money to
the department.
So how will anyone ever prove anything.
>
>>>> In undergraduate work it is only to find where you got the information.
>>> The whole point of university is to learn. Letting your students get
>>> away with doing something completely wrong with telling them that it is
>>> incorrect just because "undergraduate work is never important anyway" is
>>> doing your students a huge disservice.
>>
>> Insisting they only point to your particular source in your book is also
>> wrong.
>
> Indeed. And no one (other than the voices in your head) have said that
> that is in any way correct or a good idea.
I'd allow student to point to anything they wanted and I';d judge them
on the sources they cited rather than who they suck up to.
Not a popular idea I know especially when politics are evolved. ;-)
>> Education isn;t just about agreeing with your peers,
>
> Exactly, but you have know what your peers actually think before you can
> disagree with them. Doing like you do and disagreeing with someone over a
> position they never actually held just makes you look a fool.
But I haven't done that, it wasn't me that suggested that hard labour would
reduce
reoffending. I already check that out, there's for more cited evidence that
pink is calming,
and as a lot of the inmates were in for violent offences I can';t think why
they especially
would be the only ones in the world immune to the psychological effects of
pink, can you ?
> Citing someone is not the same as agreeing with them you know. Even when
> you want to argue that something is a complete load of bollocks and the
> person who wrote it is a moron, you still have to cite it. In fact I'd
> say that citing is, if anything, more important when disagreeing with
> someone. Now repeat after me, citing does not equal agreeing.
I know that but citing something usualy means you agree with it.
If I want to promote a mates band I';m more likely to cite favourable
reviews
than unfavourable, if there's none I might not cite any rather thabn cite
just#
unfavourable ones.
>
>>>>> Citing correctly is a major part of writing academic papers.
>>>> The major bit of writing academic papers is that they are correct in
>>>> what they state.
>>> Even more important than that is the what I write is independently
>>> verifiable as correct.
>> No that what YOU write is correct not what you copy is correct.
>
> Citing isn't the same as copying you moron.
Name calling just proves you've lost the plot.
> Also if you base your writings on false assumptions
Such as pink is calming ........
>then your ideas probably won't be correct
Like hardr labour reducing reoffending.
> either, thus the importance on basing your thesis or theory on a solid
> foundation.
And there is lots of solid foundation that has been proved and cited
regarding
pink having a claming effect, but nothing I've found that says hard labour
has
any such effect on calmness or reducing reoffending.
But you seem to think thatv is a serious possibility, I'd like to know why.
Where are yuor cites to back up your point which YOU brought up not me.
>Again what good does it do that what I write happens to be correct if no
>one can verify that it is correct.
Again lok arounfd you for every one cite that say hard labour reduces
crime/reoffending I'll sure you two that say pink has a calming effect and I
would
have thought with violent offenders this may well make them less violent,
and if tehy also don;t like the colour pink they'll be less likely to want
to live in a pink
'home'
It can;'t be beyond anyone to realise that a goth club done out in pinkm
wouldn't be
that popular, but why s is psychlogical, is it envirniomental, or is it
because opink smells
funny ?
>>> C) where do you get this idea that citing others and thinking for
>>> yourself are somehow at odds with each other.
>> because if you're restricted to authorative cites and not allowed to
>> think for yourself then
>> there's no educational,value and no progression.
>
> Again citing involves neither copying nor agreeing you moron. How are you
> supposed to progress and educate yourself without looking at what has been
> done before. Is everybody supposed to work everything out from first
> principels in your world?
No that's why I looked at 'pink psychology' to see if there was ANY evidence
what so ever that pink can affect anyone's mind and there was lots of it,
far more than hard labour anyway.
That's why I dismised the idea that the reason they weren't reoffending was
due to har labour
how many more times must ****I*** cite evidence to support my beliefs.
>>> I have no idea if such data exists or not, nor do I particularly care
>>> enough to bother looking it up.
>>
>> So you're not very good at research then are you.
>
> Why? Because I'm too lazy to look up something that I have no interest
> in?
If you want me to believe your POV then surely you should do.
If you want me to believe that there is ANY possibility that hard labour
has ANY effect on criminals then you'll need to cite it.
After all you were the one to suggest that the hard labour could be why
prisoners
were reoffending less, some suggest if you seriously believe it you should
back it up.
I've posted links where pink has been proved to have an effect on humans and
I think even criminals are human.
>> Surely if yuo wish to prove your point that the hard labour could have
>> any
>> effect on reoffending then you should be able to cite such tests or
>> facts to prove it,
>
> When did this magically become my point?
When you fist steated it in the very beginning.
> I never made this point, nor have I said anything that could indicate me
> championing this point.
Go back and check on that.
> If you recall what originally happened, you dismissed the idea that hard
> labour and malnutrition could have an effect of prisoner behavior out of
> hand and I pointed out that doing so is bad science. That point I stand
> by. As to whether or not it actually has an effect, I neither know nor
> care.
Well cite your own post, but I didn't comment on malnutrition.
I didn;t dismiss hard labour out of hand.
I said I didn't; consider hard labour to have the effect as I couldn't find
any
evidence to support that idea.
> > I could say it was because the moon is further awayb
>> that it was, or perhaps topically cite global warming as the cause.
>
> Indeed you could. There is nothing stopping you from doing so.
But surely I'd really need to cite it if I believed it and su[pported it.
>>>> If not then why not, could it be that such data has
>>>> been ignored or even faked.
>>> I suppose it's possible.
>> Then you'd be able to prove it wouldn't you,
>
> Prove what? That is possible to fake or ignore research data? Surely
> that's pretty obvious, there have been plenty of well documented cases. I
> can fake some research data right now if you want me to, and so can you no
> doubt.
well I'm not a researcher, but if researchers can fake data how do you know
that
what you cite is factual, if they are cleverer than you and their peers
they'll be able to fake whatever they want won't they.
> As to proving whether or not relevant data actually has been faked or
> ignored, that is a harder and more laborious process. One that I have no
> interest in undertaking since this is way outside of my field and I
> genuinely don't really care about it.
Well I would have thought that certain things like hard labour or treating
prisonors harshly or even badly would reduce reoffending but I've always
been told I'm wrong and even that it has the opposite affect which is why
I dismissed the idea that hard labour would have the effect of reducing
reoffeding in
the prison, now I'm sure they must be peer reviwed jounals and lots of other
data
on this.
>> otherwise your just another fuckwit that can't provide cites to back up
>> what you believe.
>
> Why should I have to provide cites to back up everything I believe.
Because yuo expect me to bleieve what you say perhaps.
> That's just dumb. What if I'm the only person in the whole world to
> believe what I believe, who should I cite then?
The same thing I have to, when I suggested the the pink reduced reoffending.
> facto, constitute proof that the cited idea is true right?
well if the sherrif is the only one to have found pink lowers reoffending as
he's the only one to have painted the prison walls pink how will he prove
it.
) that the debris from whatever came down in
>> Roswell
> <snip>
>
> And what does any of that have to do with citing in academic publications?
How to you find the truth when the facts are hidden, you just accept what
your
so called betters tell you isn';t that the way. Those that are more
qualified
than you, those that know more about it than you.
>
>> For the sort of thing we do in my lab that means students should be able
>> to go to
>> any source they like on helping them construct their electronics project
>> there are
>> 100s of them from professionals to hobbyists, the circuit will either
>> work or it won't
>> but why restrict a students word to so called authorised sites ?
>
> Do you realize the differences between your students building a circuit
> and publishing original research?
If you're publishing original research how can it be peer reviewed ?
I'ts original it means not done before.
If you are the first person to paint he prison walls pink then there's no
one
else that can valid what you've done.
H Duffy
"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
>
> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6620alF...@mid.individual.net...
>> simply expect them to use, and cite, reliable sources. And to make that
>> easier for them, and to ensure that they don't have to pay for their
>> reliable sources if they don't want to, we provide them with free access
>> to a library, which has lots of reliable sources in it.
> But not the only source of course because few libraries contain every book
> ever written
That's right. But of course, they don't _need_ every book ever written; most
of them will be irrelevant to whatever they happen to be doing. So we just
make sure that there are enough _relevant_ books in the library, plus
accessible journal articles, that they can complete the work they're
assigned.
>> Well, part of "ability" is the ability to find and use and cite reliable
>> sources,
> Only the only reliable source for what happened at Roswell was the US
> government
But since the Roswell incident isn't actually on any curricula that I'm
aware of, that's not relevant; it's a tangent. Stop going off on tangents.
We're tlaking about undergraduate students in Universities. Stick to that.
OK?
> >and to distinguish between reliable sources (like peer-reviewed
>> journals) and unreliable sources (like Wikipedia, religious websites, and
>> so on).
> well wiki does cite some sources.
Yes, and some of those sources are reliable, but Wikipedia itself isn't,
because anyone can edit it at any time.
>> No, absolutely; in fact, quite often it's _disagreeing_ with it that
>> demonstrates some original thought and uderstanding. But it's a lot more
>> useful to disagree (or agree, either way) with a reputable, reliable
>> source than with some nutjob who has put up a bunch of inaccurate
>> nonsense as propaganda on a website.
>
> Yep but how do you prove it. How can you tell a nut job from an official
> liar
> with a government run website to back them up, and lots of people also
> agree with it
> because if they don;t they won't have a job.
You look for peer-reviewed sources. As I've explained, in peer-reviewed
journals, no-one's job is on the line, regardless of whether they agree or
disagree, so you can be fairly sure that no-one is simply toeing a party
line (reviewers are generally anonymous anyway).
I don't know whether you realise it, but you're now pretty much suporting
what I and Dag and Troia and others have been saying; that some sources are
not reliable, and therefore one should look for reliable, externally
validated sources rather than simply accepting whatever webpage your search
happens to throw up.
>> Right. And the way those things changed is that people read _those_
>> journals, and then came up with intelligent refutations. If they hadn't
>> bothered to read them, they couldn't have pointed out why they were
>> wrong, and no progress would have been made.
> But proving them wrong is where the problem lies especially when you have
> so
> many agreeing with the original material because they think it makes them
> look clever.
What makes you think proving them wrong is a problem? It's actually not
_that_ difficult; you examine their experimental methods and their theories,
and you find the flaws in them, and you replicate their studies and see if
you get the same results, and you do your own research on the same area, and
publish that.
Academia really isn't full of Yes-men, as you seem to think; academics
thrive on disagreement. It's how progress is made, so very few academics are
afraid of disagreeing with what someone else has said.
>> No, Dave, I didn't; you _assumed_ that any source that supported what I'd
>> said was Catholic, but you were actually entirely wrong about that.
>
> But you never proved the point though did you, just found the same thing
> that
> was said some 400 years ago.
I found a number of eminent historians whose point of view supports what I
said. That's about as close to proof as you can get when talking about
renaissance history. You haven't accepted that those historians know more
than you do about the subject, but that's because you're pretty much
incapable of analytical or critical thought; you have a gut feeling that
you're right, and no amount of evidence can change that, because you work
purely on gut feelings rather than evidence. In that, you're really very
like the people, whom you crticise on a regular basis, who believe every
word of the Bible because they simply _know_ it's true, no matter what the
evidence says.
And when someone else came along and agreed
> with me you called them a fuckwit or something similar
I didn't call him a fuckwit, I pointed out he was a grepping loon, which he
was.
> There was a program on the other night about Brutus and that the idea that
> he
> betrayed Jesus was another mistranslation I've believed that for years
You think Brutus betrayed Jesus?
Um... wrong JC. You've got _very_ mixed up.
Now, perhaps when you've figured out where you went wrong here, you could
take that as an indication of your understanding of ancient history, and
recognise that actually, you know fuck all about ancient history, biblical
or otherwise.
> So inteligence over the peer reviewed and authorised KJV Bible.
You're off on a tangent again; the Bible is not an academic source. We're
talking about academic sources. therefore, we are not talking about the
Bible.
Clear?
>> For example, I'm reading various stuff on evolutionary psychology at the
>> moment. I _could_ go and read some creationist websites,
> You should do, there really funny, much funnier than the simpsons.
>
> >because they
>> mention evolution. But would there be any point? No, of course not,
>> because they don't actually have anything useful or informative to say
>> about evolution.
> Well they may have done in the past in fact in the past you'd have had to
> agree with them
> to have any career prospects or to be thought of as clever or educated.
You are missing my point; is that deliberate or accidental? Do I need to
explain it again, or are you just choosing to ignore it because it doesn't
fit with your faith-based worldview?
>>or So instead, I'll stick to scientific articles in reputable journals,
>>and scientific books published by reputable publishers.
> It doesn't always make them right though, we know things change with the
> times
> and 500 odd years ago you'd be locked up for what yuo believe.
But we're talkign about now, not about 500 years ago. We're talking about
modern academia. Stop going off on obsessive tangents, and stick to what
we're actually talking about.
>> Because even a reputable source doesn't have access to Absolute Truth;
>> quite often, we want them to look at two opposing views of the same
>> issue, and try to understand the evidence behind each view.
> Yes, so why not let them go to a creationist website to see the other side
> of the coin
> and let them compare, why not ?
Because we're interested in scientific viewpoints, not faith-based ones.
Faith-based viewpoints have their place, but that place is not within
academia, and since, here, we're talking about academia, faith-based
approaches are not relevant.
>> Yes, and in your spare time, you can, but some opinions just don't inform
>> the debate at all, and are thus a waste of time.
> In your opinion.
No, Dave, not in _my_ opinion; in the opinion of anyone in Academia.
because, y'see, we're not interested in simple, unfounded or faith-based
opinions, we're interested in the way students (and other academics) deal
with _evidence_. We're interested in how people apply the scientific method.
>> That's right; some members of the human race know enough about a given
>> subject that their opinions are useful and informative. Some don't.
>
> But how can you judge without listening to both sides.
By introducing the scientific method. That way, anyone who has evidence can
show it, and be listened to, and anyone who doesn't can go off and have
their own faith-based beliefs, but keep them out of academia.
>> *heh* What, and ask some Sherriff in America who claims to have reduced
>> recidivism by 70% by painting the prison pink? Exactly how far beyond
>> that source did _you_ go before accepting his story, Dave? What evidence
>> did you look at to support what he said?
> I looked at other sites which discuss the colour pink.
Did any of them provide evidence to support _his claim_ about reoffence
statistics dropping? Did any of them even mention it?
> I can't proved what he said but as with even reputable sites I don;t know
> whether
> the tests were done on students correctly and whether or not I believe
> they
> act the same as adults is another point. I haven't seen the questionnaires
> or how they
> were answered all I've see are that I've been told are the results is that
> really proof.
> Considering I've been lied about on states and I have know states to be
> faked more
> times than they have been factual.
And yet you chose to believe the statisttic reported in that newspaper
article, even though no further evidence or information was given,a nd even
though it didn't fit with the other evidence you yourself found (those crime
stats you linked to); why?
>> No, it really isn't. Whether a source is reputable or not doesn't depend
>> on which opinions they express, it depends on whether they actually
>> provide reliable, valid evidence for their opinions.
> Do you truly believe that the male propensity to rape is the same as a
> students propensity to rape is.
Can you explain to me how that's a relevant question here, other than the
fact that it caters to your sick little obsession with talking about rape?
Seriously, Dave, has there ever been a discussion about _anything_ that you
haven't tried to turn into a discussion about rape?
>>If a Creationist came up with some solid _proof_ that the planet is only
>>6,000 years old, and could show the whole research process, then their
>>views would be worth listening to.
>
> But what if someone took a piece of the Turin shroud to prove it is only
> 300
> years old or whatever because the part they took was a section that had
> been repaired 300 years ago.
What about it? Think carefully, and then tell me what point you think you're
trying to make here.
> For me I don;t have any idea whether or not it's the shroud of Christ all
> I'd
> want is them to take a bit of original cloth from it and test than rather
> than a
> corner that was repaired after the fire.
They did actually test the original fabric. Repairs had been done after fire
damage, but not to the parts they tested.
>> Similarly, if Darwin had said "Evolution is the one true path and anyone
>> who doesn't believe in it is an infidel", he wouldn't be counted as one
>> of the Fathers of Modern Science. He's reputable because he provided
>> logical, evidence-based proof of his theories.
> For me he changed his mind as he didn't;t really believe in what he found
> but the evidence was so overwhelming that he changed his mind that is a
> true
> researcher and scientist judging on evidence that HE found rather than
> what
> someone else has told him to believe rightfully or wrongfully.
That's what all researchers do, Dave; we don't sit here, zoned out and
parrotting whatever we're told. We're paid to think for ourselves; that's
what we do for a living.
The fact that we often don't agree with your faith-based beliefs doesn't
mean we're not thinking for ourselves. If anything, it means _you're_ not
thinking for yourself, because you've shown, again and again, that you're
incapable of actually basing your views on the evidence, rather than on your
gut feeling.
>> I don't know of any reputable sources, and thus I don't have a strong
>> opinion on what it was. It seems likely that it was a spy balloon of some
>> sort, but without seeing actual evidence, I can't draw a conclusion.
>
> It seemed starnge that it took 590 years before someone changed it from
> weather ballon to spy ballon, considering there >
I'm going to assume there's a typo in there, as well as a missing sentence
ending. Would you like to try again?
>> stuff that someone has already done, mightn't it? I mean, there'd be no
>> point in an astrophysicist _now_ saying "Hold on chaps; I think I've
>> figured it out! The planets don't revolve around the Earth, they go round
>> the sun! Hah! How's that for new research!".
> But what happens when you lock that person up and threaten to kill him he
> he contioues
> to tell the trurth ?
We';re talking about _modern_ academia, Dave, not mediaeval academia. Things
have changed. Here in the Western World, in the 21st century, we don't lock
people up for heliocentrism, so that's simply not a relevant comment.
>
>> In order to generate _new_ knowledge, you have to understand the state of
>> the science as it is, and that involves reading old stuff, so that you're
>> not just reinventing the wheel.
> Nothing wrong with that if the original wheel is wonky.
But in order to know whether it needs reinventing, you need to stdy the
original wheel, correct?
In other words, you can neither re-invent the old stuff, nor create new
stuff, without referring to the old stuff.
If you want to do new, innovative research, you have to know what research
has already been done.
>> No, Dave, you don't. For example, you've repeatedly accused me of
>> believing that the Bible is true.
> I never said that.
You have done, repeatedly.
>> Yes, really; when was the last time you heard of an undergraduate putting
>> out any rally ground-breaking work?
> well when the 11 or 13 yearold crack some maths problem
Could you give me a specific example?
>> *heh8 See, all you mean here is that anyone who doesn't absolutely agree
>> with you must be unenlightened.
>> This is amusing, because that's precisely the attitude you're attributing
>> to Academia. In fact, Academia doesn't have that attitude, but you do.
>> Surely even you can see the irony in that?
>
> You point about the Bible was that is was authorised and what was it 52
> scholars
> of teh time translated it so they got it right.
No Dave, that wasn't my point. See what I mean about you _always_ getting it
wrong when you think you know my opinion?
>> No, I was interested in what was done, I just didn't agree with the
>> conlcusions, because tyhey make certain blatantly false assumptions.
>> Or rather, the newspaper report you linked to included those assumptions;
>> whether they were included in the original research, I don't know. I
>> suspect they weren't.
>
> The journals out there it was written at the time go check it out.
If you'd like to link to it, feel free.
H
H Duffy
"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
>
> When Hester said dhe like to see a cetain picture that she said didn;t
> exist
> the owner no longer had the site so the picture wasn;t there does that
> mean it
> never existed ?
*sigh* The reason I said that picture never existed, you fucking moron, is
because you were describing an alleged picture of _me_, which I know never
existed. It's not because the site is down, it's because I never did the
things you described. Do you understand the difference?
H
Peter H. Coffin
posts kbytes name address
31 60.5 Peter H. Coffin hel...@ninehells.com
27 184.9 whisky-dave whisk...@final.front.ear
22 42.9 Axel ax...@eol.ca
21 33.6 Macross Actual macros...@gmail.com
14 124.9 H Duffy hester...@nospam.hotmail.com
12 31.4 kest ke...@spamfree.nettrip.org
12 28.4 Dag dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com
11 20.8 Sloot spammy.sl...@gmail.com
9 25.4 Axel der....@gmail.com
8 19.0 Troia troia....@gmail.removethiscom
8 14.5 Siobhan ne...@virulent.org
6 13.4 kambriel nos...@kambriel.com
5 10.3 gothpat P.Hawk...@gmail.com
5 9.3 Oct'avian octa...@silvermoondesigns.org
5 8.6 shannon...@hotmail.com shannon...@hotmail.com
5 7.4 Jennie Kermode "Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.u
4 7.7 Metamorph Meta...@cox.net
3 9.9 The Sinuous Scintillator of fasc...@my-deja.com
3 8.5 c_death death+...@perkigoth.com
3 5.8 "The forever lurking (again) "The forever lurking (again), and r
--- -----
214 667.1 Total for top 20
Totals for the newsgroup:
48 posters
249 articles
764.4 kbytes
The top 20 accounted for:
41.7% of the posters
85.9% of the articles
87.3% of the bytes
Averages:
5.2 articles / poster
3.1 kbytes / article
15.9 kbytes / poster
11 people posted for the first time this period.
They went on to post 19 articles altogether
The new posters accounted for:
22.9% of the posters
7.6% of the articles
5.8% of the bytes
--
God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
Dag
> yes such as pink, you can quite easily find many references to pink
> having a psychological effect on people, I can see no reason why criminals
> should be excluded.
The question was never whether it _could_ have some effect, but if it
did have the specific effect claimed. Whereas I could accept the former
I very much doubt the latter.
>> Also I might not be able to access that article via the same URL you used
>> for various reasons. Citing author, title, journal name, year, volume and
>> page (and URL in addition to all this if you really want) makes it a lot
>> easier to find.
> Yes it does, but ease of finding it is hardly relivant to it's factual
> content.
>>> If I tell them I have a book with the same article and that book
is now
>>> out of print how do we proceed.
>> Finding copies of out of print books rarely very hard. Your local library
>> can no doubt help you.
> But it doesn;t make them correct does it.
Of course not. Citing something doesn't have anything do to with
correctness of the material in question. It is not uncommon to cite
work that you know is incorrect to show mistakes people have made.
>> Just because I find something so trivially obvious that it doesn't seem
>> worth dwelling on, my readers might not. And so it is good to tell them
>> where they can go for more background information. You should always cite
>> in such a way that finding the article is as easy as possible, both now
>> and in the future.
> I agree but it's not always possible.
True there are cases when it is not possible to present your sources, or
where your sources are hard or impossible to check up. And in and of
itself there is nothing wrong with that, but you have to have some
pretty good arguments as to why you can't present your sources and why
we should believe you anyway.
>> Indeed. And no one (other than the voices in your head) have said that
>> that is in any way correct or a good idea.
> I'd allow student to point to anything they wanted and I';d judge them
> on the sources they cited rather than who they suck up to.
Which is exactly what everybody else does as well. Except they
primarily also judge them on the quality of their ideas, arguments and
writing. If your arguments and ideas are badly thought through and
presented it doesn't matter who or what you've cited.
>>> Education isn;t just about agreeing with your peers,
>> Exactly, but you have know what your peers actually think before you can
>> disagree with them. Doing like you do and disagreeing with someone over a
>> position they never actually held just makes you look a fool.
> But I haven't done that, it wasn't me that suggested that hard labour would
> reduce reoffending.
Nor did I. I suggested that it could be a factor and as an avenue of
research, and if that turns out not be the case I have no problem at all
admitting that my assumption was incorrect. I fail to see what the
problem is. You keep bringing it up all over the place like you think
it scores you some major points.
>> Also if you base your writings on false assumptions
> Such as pink is calming ........
So is that a false assumption now?
>> then your ideas probably won't be correct
> Like hardr labour reducing reoffending.
If that is in fact incorrect then yes any idea based on that
assumption being true will quite likely prove false.
However ideas based on true assumptions don't automatically become true.
>> either, thus the importance on basing your thesis or theory on a solid
>> foundation.
> And there is lots of solid foundation that has been proved and cited
> regarding pink having a claming effect,
You still haven't shown me much of this, but I'm willing to accept it.
> but nothing I've found that says hard labour has
> any such effect on calmness or reducing reoffending.
OK, I'll assume you've done the work and that that is true. Fair
enough. So you agree with me that it was worth checking out and taking
into account.
> But you seem to think thatv is a serious possibility, I'd like to know why.
Because in this particular case there seemed to be some circumstantial
evidence which indicated there might be a connection. It also just kind
of seemed like the sort of thing one should take into account. Why does
my exact line of reasoning make a difference?
> Where are yuor cites to back up your point which YOU brought up not me.
I offered it up as an avenue of research not as a central thesis. Do
you get the difference and why it doesn't need a cite?
>> Again what good does it do that what I write happens to be correct if no
>> one can verify that it is correct.
> Again lok arounfd you for every one cite that say hard labour reduces
> crime/reoffending I'll sure you two that say pink has a calming effect
You realize that quantity of cites is not necessarily a measure of
quality right. Again we where never talking about if pink has a calming
effect or not, but if painting the walls pink it the particular prison
in question was the cause of stated effect. Do you agree that the first
could be true and the second false?
and I
> would
> have thought with violent offenders this may well make them less violent,
It's certainly a possibility, I'm not and never have denied that. I
could even see arguments backing up this hypothesis. However that is
nowhere near enough to convince me that the pink walls where the sole or
even primary cause of the particular effect the guardian article
claimed. I'm not even convinced the particular effect mentioned even
occurred. Non of that is connected to my opinion as to whether or not
pink could have a calming effect. Does that make sense to you?
> No that's why I looked at 'pink psychology' to see if there was ANY evidence
> what so ever that pink can affect anyone's mind and there was lots of it,
> far more than hard labour anyway.
You haven't shown much of it, but I'll assume it exists.
> That's why I dismised the idea that the reason they weren't reoffending was
> due to har labour
Fair enough. If you think you've done enough research to be able to
back up the claim that hard labour isn't a factor in re-offending then
you are certainly welcome to dismiss it. I've certainly never claimed
anything to the contrary. I've never ever claimed that the idea cannot
be dismissed, just that it cannot be dismissed without a valid argument.
Again do you see the difference.
>>>> I have no idea if such data exists or not, nor do I particularly care
>>>> enough to bother looking it up.
>>> So you're not very good at research then are you.
>> Why? Because I'm too lazy to look up something that I have no interest
>> in?
> If you want me to believe your POV then surely you should do.
You've made it abundantly clear that you don't even have a clue what my
POV is.
> If you want me to believe that there is ANY possibility that hard labour
> has ANY effect on criminals then you'll need to cite it.
You really don't get how this works do you. I offered up a theory, you
(apparently) checked it out and concluded that it was wrong. Now if I
want to retort and claim that your research is flawed then I'd have come
with evidence for that. But I have no intention of doing so because a)
I don't care, b) I haven't seen your research or evidence and thus
cannot easily refute it, c) I have no real and obvious reason to assume
you are incorrect and d) I still don't care either way.
> After all you were the one to suggest that the hard labour could be why
> prisoners
> were reoffending less, some suggest if you seriously believe it you should
> back it up.
Except as I've pointed out over and over again, I don't "seriously
believe it".
> I've posted links where pink has been proved to have an effect on humans and
> I think even criminals are human.
I must have missed those links. Because non of the links I saw you post
actually proved anything. They included statements along the lines of
"pink is thought to have a calming effetc". And anyway, the fact that
pink can have some effect on peoples moods was never the topic of
discussion.
>> I never made this point, nor have I said anything that could indicate me
>> championing this point.
> Go back and check on that.
I said it was worth checking out. Given that you claimed to have
checked it out, you seem to at least agree that is was worth checking
out. I fail to see where we disagree.
> I said I didn't; consider hard labour to have the effect as I couldn't find
> any evidence to support that idea.
So you agree that it was worth checking out, since how else would you
know that there was no evidence to be found.
>>> I could say it was because the moon is further awayb
>>> that it was, or perhaps topically cite global warming as the cause.
>> Indeed you could. There is nothing stopping you from doing so.
> But surely I'd really need to cite it if I believed it and su[pported it.
No if you wanted to credibly argue that these factors where in fact the
main cause you'd have to prove it, or at least provide sufficient amount
of circumstantial evidence and credible arguments. You do get the
difference between citing something and proving something don't you.
> well I'm not a researcher, but if researchers can fake data how do you know
> that what you cite is factual,
You don't. Sometimes you even know that what you're citing isn't
factual. Factual is an entirely different issue totally unconnected to
citing.
> if they are cleverer than you and their peers
> they'll be able to fake whatever they want won't they.
It's very hard to do convincingly and there is a very good chance that
they'll eventually get caught. The simple truth is that there is always
someone more clever than you are in some area who will eventually catch
you out.
And really if you are the most clever person in your field why would you
need to fake research. If you're that clever you should have no problem
doing groundbreaking proper research.
> If you're publishing original research how can it be peer reviewed ?
Holy shit! You really are clueless aren't you. That statement is
probably the most bafflingly ignorant thing I've seen you write. Out of
curiosity what do you think peer review means and how do you think it's
done? Also what makes you think peer review cannot be done on original
research? Your answer will no doubt be a must amusing read. As hint I
can mention that I've already answered the first question in one of my
earlier posts, which I think you actually even replied to.
Dag
whisky-dave
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> news:ftiput$14b$1@qmul...
>>
>> When Hester said dhe like to see a cetain picture that she said didn;t
>> exist
>> the owner no longer had the site so the picture wasn;t there does that
>> mean it
>> never existed ?
>
> *sigh* The reason I said that picture never existed, you fucking moron, is
> because you were describing an alleged picture of _me_, which I know never
> existed.
>It's not because the site is down, it's because I never did the things you
>described. Do you understand the difference?
What things were they then ?
It was either you sitting on David D,. lap or he on yours, there's no crime
in it
so why not just admit it. The only reason I saw it was because a friend
pointed it out as he was looking for pictures of his friends and he did a
search
and while In wasn;t in the picture the text below the picture
was Hester with a whisky dave mask on and he asked me who this Hester was
otherwise I';d probably never have seen it, perhaps you didn't see it but
that is not
evidence that it never existed.
H Duffy
"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
>
> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:664aljF...@mid.individual.net...
>> is because you were describing an alleged picture of _me_, which I know
>> never existed.
> Yes it has, as I've seen it and so have others.
But if it is as you've described it, it isn't a picture of _me_.
>
>>It's not because the site is down, it's because I never did the things you
>>described. Do you understand the difference?
> What things were they then ?
>
> It was either you sitting on David D,. lap or he on yours, there's no
> crime in it
> so why not just admit it. The only reason I saw it was because a friend
> pointed it out as he was looking for pictures of his friends and he did a
> search
> and while In wasn;t in the picture the text below the picture
> was Hester with a whisky dave mask on and he asked me who this Hester was
> otherwise I';d probably never have seen it, perhaps you didn't see it but
> that is not
> evidence that it never existed.
I've never worn a Whisky dave mask. Therefore, if the person in the photo
was wearing a Whisky Dave mask, it wasn't me. Clear?
H
whisky-dave
> whisky-dave wrote:
>> "Dag" <dag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ftg0s...@news4.newsguy.com...
>
>> yes such as pink, you can quite easily find many references to pink
>> having a psychological effect on people, I can see no reason why
>> criminals
>> should be excluded.
>
> The question was never whether it _could_ have some effect, but if it did
> have the specific effect claimed. Whereas I could accept the former I
> very much doubt the latter.
Well you'll have to wait until someone else does a similar thing then.
>> But it doesn;t make them correct does it.
>
> Of course not. Citing something doesn't have anything do to with
> correctness of the material in question. It is not uncommon to cite
> work that you know is incorrect to show mistakes people have made.
That's why I can't see any reason why people should cite anything they want.
Whether or not another person believes it or not is irrelevant to the facts.
For example the picture I've said I've seen of Hester is no longer there,
does that mean it never existed, maybe you saw it too, I've no idea.
But I say it existed Hester appears to be denying it's existence both in the
past present and future, I can only comment on the past.
When I said it was called something like Hester in a whisky dave mask she's
says
it couldn't have existed because he's never worn a WD mask.
So see how she's carefully manipulated what I said, not if she can do that
as a teaching assistant and part time researcher just think how much better
a professional
person could manipulate the words and meanings of people if they so wished
>>> Just because I find something so trivially obvious that it doesn't seem
>>> worth dwelling on, my readers might not. And so it is good to tell them
>>> where they can go for more background information. You should always
>>> cite in such a way that finding the article is as easy as possible, both
>>> now and in the future.
>> I agree but it's not always possible.
>
> True there are cases when it is not possible to present your sources, or
> where your sources are hard or impossible to check up. And in and of
> itself there is nothing wrong with that, but you have to have some pretty
> good arguments as to why you can't present your sources and why we should
> believe you anyway.
I presented my sources though, whether or not you accept them as real
sources
is up to you. Where would you get your sources on crime.
The police, private individuals in the area concerned, crime prevention
sites,
government sites. If you want to know what the 'cost of living is'
do you realy not include housing costs.
>
>>> Indeed. And no one (other than the voices in your head) have said that
>>> that is in any way correct or a good idea.
>> I'd allow student to point to anything they wanted and I';d judge them
>> on the sources they cited rather than who they suck up to.
>
> Which is exactly what everybody else does as well. Except they
> primarily also judge them on the quality of their ideas, arguments and
> writing. If your arguments and ideas are badly thought through and
> presented it doesn't matter who or what you've cited.
True, but thinking about the pink prison, if you have to consider that
the reduced reoffending is down to hard labour that very much looks like
you've accepted the figures that the sheriff has said or at least that there
has
been a reduction otherwise why suggest that hard labour could be the course.
As I said if anyone suggests such a thing as hard labour reduces reoffeding
they should really be able to back it up with at least one cite.
especially when pretty much everyone has been told that such things as hard
labour,
cruelty, capital and corporal punishments have NO effect.
>> But I haven't done that, it wasn't me that suggested that hard labour
>> would reduce reoffending.
>
> Nor did I. I suggested that it could be a factor and as an avenue of
> research,
But such things have been done, they may not have been done by a
professional
research body but they have been tried, and said to be ineffective as is
capital punishment.
> and if that turns out not be the case I have no problem at all admitting
> that my assumption was incorrect. I fail to see what the problem is. You
> keep bringing it up all over the place like you think it scores you some
> major points.
well you talk about evidence and citing such evidence, please do so or why
believe it.
Personally as I've said I agree that it could have some effect but just how
much, where
a reliable and reputable cite that will tell me.
>
>>> Also if you base your writings on false assumptions
>> Such as pink is calming ........
>
> So is that a false assumption now?
I don;t think so, but I'm wondering what false assumptions I've made.
>
>>> either, thus the importance on basing your thesis or theory on a solid
>>> foundation.
>> And there is lots of solid foundation that has been proved and cited
>> regarding pink having a claming effect,
>
> You still haven't shown me much of this, but I'm willing to accept it.
Well I just typed it in to google and there were far more links with
infornmation
on that than evidence that hard labour has any effect other than pissing off
liberal hippies ;-)
>> but nothing I've found that says hard labour has
>> any such effect on calmness or reducing reoffending.
>
> OK, I'll assume you've done the work and that that is true. Fair enough.
> So you agree with me that it was worth checking out and taking into
> account.
Yes of course, but as I'd heard this idea that punishments don;t reduce
reoffending
and that something like 80% reoffend, and how useless boot camp were etc...
I was a little sceptical before searching, especially when even the death
penalty
is said not to work.
>> But you seem to think thatv is a serious possibility, I'd like to know
>> why.
>
> Because in this particular case there seemed to be some circumstantial
> evidence which indicated there might be a connection. It also just kind
> of seemed like the sort of thing one should take into account. Why does
> my exact line of reasoning make a difference?
Nothing wrong with the line of reasoning as it sounded reasonable to me but
where the evidence and cites.
>> Where are yuor cites to back up your point which YOU brought up not me.
>
> I offered it up as an avenue of research not as a central thesis. Do
> you get the difference and why it doesn't need a cite?
If the sheriffs evidence needs citing then so does anyones.
>>> Again what good does it do that what I write happens to be correct if no
>>> one can verify that it is correct.
>> Again lok arounfd you for every one cite that say hard labour reduces
>> crime/reoffending I'll sure you two that say pink has a calming effect
>
> You realize that quantity of cites is not necessarily a measure of
> quality right. Again we where never talking about if pink has a calming
> effect or not, but if painting the walls pink it the particular prison in
> question was the cause of stated effect. Do you agree that the first
> could be true and the second false?
It could be, but we are talking about proof here not just possibilities.
>
> and I
>> would
>> have thought with violent offenders this may well make them less violent,
>
> It's certainly a possibility, I'm not and never have denied that. I could
> even see arguments backing up this hypothesis. However that is nowhere
> near enough to convince me that the pink walls where the sole or even
> primary cause of the particular effect the guardian article claimed.
Well it was really the sherrif claiming it the guardian just reported it.
> I'm not even convinced the particular effect mentioned even occurred. Non
> of that is connected to my opinion as to whether or not pink could have a
> calming effect. Does that make sense to you?
A little.
>> That's why I dismised the idea that the reason they weren't reoffending
>> was due to har labour
>
> Fair enough. If you think you've done enough research to be able to back
> up the claim that hard labour isn't a factor in re-offending then you are
> certainly welcome to dismiss it.
I'm not prepared to spend that much time on it, but I would have assumed
that
if it were true then it wouldn;t be that hard to prove.
>>>>> I have no idea if such data exists or not, nor do I particularly care
>>>>> enough to bother looking it up.
>>>> So you're not very good at research then are you.
>>> Why? Because I'm too lazy to look up something that I have no interest
>>> in?
>> If you want me to believe your POV then surely you should do.
>
> You've made it abundantly clear that you don't even have a clue what my
> POV is.
I thought you believed that hard labour reduces reoffending.
or at least it played a part, I just wanted to see what made you think that.
I used to think like that too, then I was educated via looking for evidence
;-)
>> I've posted links where pink has been proved to have an effect on humans
>> and
>> I think even criminals are human.
>
> I must have missed those links. Because non of the links I saw you post
> actually proved anything. They included statements along the lines of
> "pink is thought to have a calming effetc". And anyway, the fact that
> pink can have some effect on peoples moods was never the topic of
> discussion.
Mood affect behavour that's a fact maybe digging a hole or bashing rocks do
to.
>
>
>> I said I didn't; consider hard labour to have the effect as I couldn't
>> find any evidence to support that idea.
>
> So you agree that it was worth checking out, since how else would you know
> that there was no evidence to be found.
Most things are worth checking, but there's not many in this case.
>
>>>> I could say it was because the moon is further awayb
>>>> that it was, or perhaps topically cite global warming as the cause.
>>> Indeed you could. There is nothing stopping you from doing so.
>> But surely I'd really need to cite it if I believed it and su[pported it.
>
> No if you wanted to credibly argue that these factors where in fact the
> main cause you'd have to prove it, or at least provide sufficient amount
> of circumstantial evidence and credible arguments. You do get the
> difference between citing something and proving something don't you.
can I really prove something without a cite to back it up.
>> if they are cleverer than you and their peers they'll be able to fake
>> whatever they want won't they.
>
> It's very hard to do convincingly and there is a very good chance that
> they'll eventually get caught. The simple truth is that there is always
> someone more clever than you are in some area who will eventually catch
> you out.
Unless money, sex, power, or promotion is inviolved of course.
>
> And really if you are the most clever person in your field why would you
> need to fake research. If you're that clever you should have no problem
> doing groundbreaking proper research.
>
>> If you're publishing original research how can it be peer reviewed ?
>
> Holy shit!
Batmans or Jesus's
>You really are clueless aren't you. That statement is probably the most
>bafflingly ignorant thing I've seen you write. Out of curiosity what do
>you think peer review means and how do you think it's done?
I think it'sd done by getting peolpe to agree with what you have said and
the
way yuo have done it.
> Also what makes you think peer review cannot be done on original
> research?
If it's truely original it is NEW.
Checking out new data that could have taken a few years to compile can't be
done
while having a shit.
If you want to know whether opink has any effect of prisoners reoffending
you'd
realy need to set up a study with prisoners (NOT students in the bar) and do
a test for a few years, and perhaps even a few prisons.
Now the sheriff started this in 2005 IIRC with sentence being at least a few
years I wouldn't expected significant results for a few years,
and if anyone's checking his results and trying it for themselves I wouldn't
expect
peer review evidence for about 5 years.
As for hard labour considering the 100s of years with had with it, I'd
expect
loads of evidendce one way or the other.
whisky-dave
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> news:ftipup$149$1@qmul...
>>
>> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:6620alF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> We don't restrict them in terms of where they can find their sources; we
>>> simply expect them to use, and cite, reliable sources. And to make that
>>> easier for them, and to ensure that they don't have to pay for their
>>> reliable sources if they don't want to, we provide them with free access
>>> to a library, which has lots of reliable sources in it.
>> But not the only source of course because few libraries contain every
>> book ever written
>
> That's right. But of course, they don't _need_ every book ever written;
> most of them will be irrelevant to whatever they happen to be doing. So we
> just make sure that there are enough _relevant_ books in the library, plus
> accessible journal articles, that they can complete the work they're
> assigned.
There's rarely enough money in any but the highest funded universities
to have sufficient books for everyone.
>>> Well, part of "ability" is the ability to find and use and cite reliable
>>> sources,
>> Only the only reliable source for what happened at Roswell was the US
>> government
>
> But since the Roswell incident isn't actually on any curricula that I'm
> aware of,
It was on a friends who course was unexplained UFO's it was
called Ufology or something he got a degree in it, not that it's very
useful
but the idea was not that he find the truth but how he went about finding
the truth
which should be relevant to any so called researcher.
Whereas yuo called anyone that didn;t agree with the weather ballon a liar.
> We're tlaking about undergraduate students in Universities. Stick to that.
> OK?
My friend was an undergraduate student at UEL, you may have heard of it.
Although it was about 7 years ago.
He also tried to commit suicide a few times and spent time in goodmayes
psychiatric hospital, he really did try, he came close to death.
He now lives in spain teaching English as a second language.
>> >and to distinguish between reliable sources (like peer-reviewed
>>> journals) and unreliable sources (like Wikipedia, religious websites,
>>> and so on).
>> well wiki does cite some sources.
>
> Yes, and some of those sources are reliable, but Wikipedia itself isn't,
> because anyone can edit it at any time.
So, if anyone can edit it, it also means blatant lies can both be added as
well as removed, but you can see that as History or any discussions
regarding the
point unlike books.
>
> I don't know whether you realise it, but you're now pretty much suporting
> what I and Dag and Troia and others have been saying; that some sources
> are not reliable, and therefore one should look for reliable, externally
> validated sources rather than simply accepting whatever webpage your
> search happens to throw up.
But you should also think for yourself , educated people do.
As an example I don;t think that students of 17-29 act in the same ways
as all those from the ages of 14-~100 whether male or female.
IF you're testing on babies I'd hope that's your finding would
be useful for the same range of samples as you took to real life.
But if you start saying that your test range was 1-4 year olds I hope you
wouldn't
claim that the results are relevant to all children from 1-16
from a behavioural, psychological or even chemical basis.
>> But proving them wrong is where the problem lies especially when you have
>> so
>> many agreeing with the original material because they think it makes them
>> look clever.
>
> What makes you think proving them wrong is a problem?
well I know captial punishent aka the death penalty DOES reduce reoffending
I can find loads of evidence of it. But can yuo find any research that
supports such an idea.
> Academia really isn't full of Yes-men,
Not full of but nowadys money position and with lack of funding there's a
scrap to
get a slice of the pie.
>as you seem to think; academics thrive on disagreement.
Not with their peers they don't.
>>> No, Dave, I didn't; you _assumed_ that any source that supported what
>>> I'd said was Catholic, but you were actually entirely wrong about that.
>>
>> But you never proved the point though did you, just found the same thing
>> that
>> was said some 400 years ago.
>
> I found a number of eminent historians whose point of view supports what I
> said.
It supports what you said because they support what was said at the time
they showed nothing new.
But can you prove that they are actual historians looking at History rather
than
just supporting what the authorised version of the Boble says.
In the same way that historians say Judas was a bad
person and Jesus was resurrected, rather than his body stolen or anything
else.
>That's about as close to proof as you can get when talking about
>renaissance history. You haven't accepted that those historians know more
>than you do about the subject,
Why should I, well not about that particular point anyway,.
They probably haven't looked at any new evidence in 30 years.
>but that's because you're pretty much incapable of analytical or critical
>thought; you have a gut feeling that you're right,
It's not a gut feeling it was evidence via a professor of astronomy that
has recently studied the subject in enough depth to teach it.
>and no amount of evidence can change that, because you work purely on gut
>feelings rather than evidence.
If not just a gut feeling it is based on other evidence such as that it
takes armed
troups and a convoy to collect a weather balloon that's 'crashed' then so be
it.
I never knew what it was but to believe it's a weather balloon to me was
farcical as they have never used such procedure to collect a weather balloon
in the past.
I still don;t believe we have the whole story maybe we never will but I
don;t
believe it was aliens either.
> In that, you're really very like the people, whom you crticise on a
> regular basis, who believe every word of the Bible because they simply
> _know_ it's true, no matter what the evidence says.
That's not me.
I've no idea whether the Turin shroud has an imprint of Jesus all I want
them to do it a proper test for the age of the shroud at the very least.
Rather than have to accept a corner that was know to have been replaced
after a fire.
> And when someone else came along and agreed
>> with me you called them a fuckwit or something similar
>
> I didn't call him a fuckwit, I pointed out he was a grepping loon, which
> he was.
Because he disagreed with you ?
>> There was a program on the other night about Brutus and that the idea
>> that he
>> betrayed Jesus was another mistranslation I've believed that for years
>
> You think Brutus betrayed Jesus?
Sorry I meant judus I said that in another email.
>> So inteligence over the peer reviewed and authorised KJV Bible.
>
> You're off on a tangent again; the Bible is not an academic source. We're
> talking about academic sources. therefore, we are not talking about the
> Bible.
> Clear?
Academia has studied the Bible for years and rightly so in my opinion.
The original script was translated by 52 or so of the worlds most best
translators of the time and they were told what to do weren't they,
which wasn;t just to translate but create a story.
>>> For example, I'm reading various stuff on evolutionary psychology at the
>>> moment. I _could_ go and read some creationist websites,
>> You should do, there really funny, much funnier than the simpsons.
>>
>> >because they
>>> mention evolution. But would there be any point? No, of course not,
>>> because they don't actually have anything useful or informative to say
>>> about evolution.
>> Well they may have done in the past in fact in the past you'd have had to
>> agree with them
>> to have any career prospects or to be thought of as clever or educated.
>
> You are missing my point; is that deliberate or accidental? Do I need to
> explain it again, or are you just choosing to ignore it because it doesn't
> fit with your faith-based worldview?
I'm not ignoring it, I'm point out that not agreeing with peers can end your
career
at the very least sometimes your life, while other times you just won;t be
supported
when you want more research.
>
>>> Because even a reputable source doesn't have access to Absolute Truth;
>>> quite often, we want them to look at two opposing views of the same
>>> issue, and try to understand the evidence behind each view.
>> Yes, so why not let them go to a creationist website to see the other
>> side of the coin
>> and let them compare, why not ?
>
> Because we're interested in scientific viewpoints, not faith-based ones.
So with regard to gay marriage I';d expect some sort of chemical test
or something factual tell me why gay people can't use the term married.
>
>>> *heh* What, and ask some Sherriff in America who claims to have reduced
>>> recidivism by 70% by painting the prison pink? Exactly how far beyond
>>> that source did _you_ go before accepting his story, Dave? What evidence
>>> did you look at to support what he said?
>> I looked at other sites which discuss the colour pink.
>
> Did any of them provide evidence to support _his claim_ about reoffence
> statistics dropping? Did any of them even mention it?
I didn't expect them to considering NO test like this has ever been done.
You've claimed that no one else has joined the two test/studies you are
going to do,
so will you accept you must also be wrong because there's no evidence
of any one else doing the same therefore they can't be validated, which
therefore makes you wrong.
>> I can't proved what he said but as with even reputable sites I don;t know
>> whether
>> the tests were done on students correctly and whether or not I believe
>> they
>> act the same as adults is another point. I haven't seen the
>> questionnaires or how they
>> were answered all I've see are that I've been told are the results is
>> that really proof.
>> Considering I've been lied about on states and I have know states to be
>> faked more
>> times than they have been factual.
>
> And yet you chose to believe the statisttic reported in that newspaper
> article,
I';ve seen nothing to dispute then other than idiots that think hard labour
was the course and I found no evidence of hard labour in reducing
reoffending
in the last 200 years.
>even though no further evidence or information was given,a nd
I've seen no conflicting evidence. As I said it was a test not a study.
A test being the first stage, like testing the water it doesn't mean it's
safe
it just means it won;t burn you, or freeze you.
When I see something on sale I assume it is safe to buy of course that might
not be true
as I discover with my heater I brought as they were recalled under a safety
warning
but I didn't know that until after mine stopped working.
So yes I assumed it was safe until I found out otherwise.
> even though it didn't fit with the other evidence you yourself found
> (those crime stats you linked to); why?
What other evidence didn't it fit in with ?
>>> No, it really isn't. Whether a source is reputable or not doesn't depend
>>> on which opinions they express, it depends on whether they actually
>>> provide reliable, valid evidence for their opinions.
>> Do you truly believe that the male propensity to rape is the same as a
>> students propensity to rape is.
>
> Can you explain to me how that's a relevant question here,
Buy actually understanding what said even on a so called reliable and
reputable site.
>other than the
> fact that it caters to your sick little obsession with talking about rape?
> Seriously, Dave, has there ever been a discussion about _anything_ that
> you haven't tried to turn into a discussion about rape?
It's because it's an emotional crime and as very few things are academic
it's
interesting to compare the two.
I also realise that when I say rape you only consider the rape of females
not males.
>
>> For me I don;t have any idea whether or not it's the shroud of Christ all
>> I'd
>> want is them to take a bit of original cloth from it and test than rather
>> than a
>> corner that was repaired after the fire.
>
> They did actually test the original fabric. Repairs had been done after
> fire damage, but not to the parts they tested.
That is untrue the section they were given to test was a small corner that
had been repaired.
>>> Similarly, if Darwin had said "Evolution is the one true path and anyone
>>> who doesn't believe in it is an infidel", he wouldn't be counted as one
>>> of the Fathers of Modern Science. He's reputable because he provided
>>> logical, evidence-based proof of his theories.
>> For me he changed his mind as he didn't;t really believe in what he found
>> but the evidence was so overwhelming that he changed his mind that is a
>> true
>> researcher and scientist judging on evidence that HE found rather than
>> what
>> someone else has told him to believe rightfully or wrongfully.
>
> That's what all researchers do, Dave; we don't sit here, zoned out and
> parrotting whatever we're told. We're paid to think for ourselves; that's
> what we do for a living.
I thought you claimed no one made money out of such things.
> The fact that we often don't agree with your faith-based beliefs doesn't
> mean we're not thinking for ourselves.
I don;t base my beliefs aroubnd faith.
> If anything, it means _you're_ not
> thinking for yourself, because you've shown, again and again, that you're
> incapable of actually basing your views on the evidence, rather than on
> your gut feeling.
I think you'll find that's yourself you're talking about.
Check out the Rosell incident, gay marriage, The Magi,
or just about anyhting we';ve disagreed about including Turbans.
>>> I don't know of any reputable sources, and thus I don't have a strong
>>> opinion on what it was. It seems likely that it was a spy balloon of
>>> some sort, but without seeing actual evidence, I can't draw a
>>> conclusion.
>>
>> It seemed starnge that it took 590 years before someone changed it from
>> weather ballon to spy ballon, considering there >
>
> I'm going to assume there's a typo in there, as well as a missing sentence
> ending. Would you like to try again?
For 50 years it was claimed to be a weather ballon, you also believed it
was a
weather balloon, you believe what yuo were told to believe.
Now we all know governments including the UK have 50 years before they have
to reveal secrets, what we can't be sure of is when those secrets are
released
is whether or not they truely have been revealed honestly .
>
>>> stuff that someone has already done, mightn't it? I mean, there'd be no
>>> point in an astrophysicist _now_ saying "Hold on chaps; I think I've
>>> figured it out! The planets don't revolve around the Earth, they go
>>> round the sun! Hah! How's that for new research!".
>> But what happens when you lock that person up and threaten to kill him he
>> he contioues
>> to tell the trurth ?
>
> We';re talking about _modern_ academia, Dave, not mediaeval academia.
> Things have changed. Here in the Western World, in the 21st century, we
> don't lock people up for heliocentrism, so that's simply not a relevant
> comment.
we don;t now beacuse it'll be pretty stupid now that most peolpe know the
a lot more about the world.
But we still have such things as the official secrets act.
We still have those that have refused to believe that educational abilities
are falling rather than rising because A levels and every other 'test/exam'
result has gone up, so academia from school to universities are busy
congratulating themselves on getting a higher number of passes than the
previous year.
While the real standards are lowering, you can deny that all you want it
doesn;t change
the facts.
>
> But in order to know whether it needs reinventing, you need to stdy the
> original wheel, correct?
Yes.
> In other words, you can neither re-invent the old stuff, nor create new
> stuff, without referring to the old stuff.
In most cases yes.
>
>>> No, Dave, you don't. For example, you've repeatedly accused me of
>>> believing that the Bible is true.
>> I never said that.
>
> You have done, repeatedly.
Show me that as a proper quote, what I;ve said is that you believed the
Bible was a correct translation of teh original scripts and that there was
no bias in them and that they were accurate.
i.e that in teh original script it stated that Mary was a virgin, which was
not
actually the case as the original scrip said she was a young women.
whisky-dave
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> news:ftleir$sic$1@qmul...
>>
>> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:664aljF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> *sigh* The reason I said that picture never existed, you fucking moron,
>>> is because you were describing an alleged picture of _me_, which I know
>>> never existed.
>> Yes it has, as I've seen it and so have others.
>
> But if it is as you've described it, it isn't a picture of _me_.
>
>>
>>>It's not because the site is down, it's because I never did the things
>>>you described. Do you understand the difference?
>> What things were they then ?
>>
>> It was either you sitting on David D,. lap or he on yours, there's no
>> crime in it
>> so why not just admit it. The only reason I saw it was because a friend
>> pointed it out as he was looking for pictures of his friends and he did a
>> search
>> and while In wasn;t in the picture the text below the picture
>> was Hester with a whisky dave mask on and he asked me who this Hester was
>> otherwise I';d probably never have seen it, perhaps you didn't see it but
>> that is not
>> evidence that it never existed.
>
> I've never worn a Whisky dave mask. Therefore, if the person in the photo
> was wearing a Whisky Dave mask, it wasn't me. Clear?
You are incredibly stupid aren't you.
I NEVER said anyone was wearing such a mask, but that was the title
or the description that the picture came under I never said any one was
wearing any mask did you not understand that.
I don't even know if it was taken at Whitby but it was on a site that had
other pictures of people at Whitby, it seemed to be part of a collection
of pictures taken at Whitby.
>
> H
>
H Duffy
"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
>> most of them will be irrelevant to whatever they happen to be doing. So
>> we
>> just make sure that there are enough _relevant_ books in the library,
>> plus
>> accessible journal articles, that they can complete the work they're
>> assigned.
>
> There's rarely enough money in any but the highest funded universities
> to have sufficient books for everyone.
Not true. There's not enough money to have enough copies of every single
book for everyone to have one, but that's not necessary.
>> But since the Roswell incident isn't actually on any curricula that I'm
>> aware of,
> It was on a friends who course was unexplained UFO's it was
> called Ufology or something he got a degree in it, not that it's very
> useful
> but the idea was not that he find the truth but how he went about finding
> the truth
> which should be relevant to any so called researcher.
> Whereas yuo called anyone that didn;t agree with the weather ballon a
> liar.
Can you show me where I did that?
>> We're tlaking about undergraduate students in Universities. Stick to
>> that.
>> OK?
> My friend was an undergraduate student at UEL, you may have heard of it.
And how is your friend relevant to this discussion?
>> Yes, and some of those sources are reliable, but Wikipedia itself isn't,
>> because anyone can edit it at any time.
> So, if anyone can edit it, it also means blatant lies can both be added as
> well as removed, but you can see that as History or any discussions
> regarding the
> point unlike books.
Right; becuase books can't be constantly updated by anyone who feels like
it, so it's not necessary to record changes in the same way.
>> I don't know whether you realise it, but you're now pretty much suporting
>> what I and Dag and Troia and others have been saying; that some sources
>> are not reliable, and therefore one should look for reliable, externally
>> validated sources rather than simply accepting whatever webpage your
>> search happens to throw up.
>
> But you should also think for yourself , educated people do.
Yes, that's right. That's what we've all been saying all along too.
>> What makes you think proving them wrong is a problem?
> well I know captial punishent aka the death penalty DOES reduce
> reoffending
> I can find loads of evidence of it. But can yuo find any research that
> supports such an idea.
Are you seriously asking me whether there is evidence that dead people don't
commit crimes?
>> Academia really isn't full of Yes-men,
> Not full of but nowadys money position and with lack of funding there's a
> scrap to
> get a slice of the pie.
Yes, but one doesn't do that by being a yes-man; in fact if anything, one
does it by being slightly controversial, and thus creating intellectual
debate.
>
>>as you seem to think; academics thrive on disagreement.
> Not with their peers they don't.
Yes, Dave, with their peers, they do! I grew up with academics, I am now an
academic myself; I really do know what I'm talking about.
>> I found a number of eminent historians whose point of view supports what
>> I
>> said.
> It supports what you said because they support what was said at the time
> they showed nothing new.
that's right; I wasn't making any new claims, I was talking about what
happened several hundred years ago. You said it didn't, they said it did.
They know more than you do. The evidence supports what I claimed. You chose
to dismiss it, and claim that it was biased, simply because it supported
what I said rather than what you said.
That makes you pretty much like a Creationist who refuses to accept the
fossil record because it doesn't agree with what they believe.
> But can you prove that they are actual historians looking at History
> rather than
> just supporting what the authorised version of the Boble says.
Eh? They weren't talking about the Bible, they were talking about the Pope's
reaction to Galileo, and yes, they were proper historians.
> In the same way that historians say Judas was a bad
> person and Jesus was resurrected, rather than his body stolen or anything
> else.
Can you name me a historian who says any such thing?
Or are you once agian just going on a faith-based approach, in much the same
way that Fundamentalist Crhistians of the more extreme pursuasian claim that
all atheists are in favour of baby-killing and perversion and drug abuse,
simply because that way they can dismiss their views?
>
>
>>That's about as close to proof as you can get when talking about
>>renaissance history. You haven't accepted that those historians know more
>>than you do about the subject,
> Why should I, well not about that particular point anyway,.
> They probably haven't looked at any new evidence in 30 years.
It being history, there isn't any new evidence, you fucking moron. They
have, however, looked at the evidence from the actual time in quetsion,
while you havewn't. So yes, damn right they know more about it than you do,
and the fact that you could suggest otherwise demonstrates that you are both
an arrogant prick and a fucking moron.
>
>
>>but that's because you're pretty much incapable of analytical or critical
>>thought; you have a gut feeling that you're right,
> It's not a gut feeling it was evidence via a professor of astronomy that
> has recently studied the subject in enough depth to teach it.
Astronomy is not history. He may know a lot aout the stars and planets, but
that doesn't mean he knows the first thing about a renaissance Pope's
reactions to Galileo's work.
>> In that, you're really very like the people, whom you crticise on a
>> regular basis, who believe every word of the Bible because they simply
>> _know_ it's true, no matter what the evidence says.
> That's not me.
it really is; look just a couple of paragraphs up; you're claiming to know
more about history than historians who have spent their lives studying the
subject. That makes you _exactly_ like a Fundie who refuses to accept the
evidence of life-long scientists, simply because they don't like what thast
evidence says.
They also pull exactly the same trick you've just pulled; they'll find, say,
an eminent lawyer, and then claim that because _he_ says evolution didn't
happen, they are too looking at the evidence. This is just like you claiming
that you have looked at the evidence because you read something an
astronomer said about Galileo; the lawyer may be eminent, but he's not a
biologist, so his views on evolution are not relevant. And your astronomer
may be an excellent astronomer, but he's not an historian, so his views on
history are actually not relevant, particularly when they come into conflict
the views of actual historians who have studied the subject.
> I've no idea whether the Turin shroud has an imprint of Jesus all I want
> them to do it a proper test for the age of the shroud at the very least.
> Rather than have to accept a corner that was know to have been replaced
> after a fire.
Which is not what they did. I don't know where you've got that idea, but
it's incorrect. The material which was tested was from the original fabric
of the shrough, not from a later repair.
>>> I didn't call him a fuckwit, I pointed out he was a grepping loon, which
>> he was.
> Because he disagreed with you ?
No, because he's a grepping loon he greps for certain terms,a nd then leaps
in with a standard response, regardless of the context of the discussion or
where it's being held, and then he wanders off to do the same thing
elsewhere. That's what a grepping loon is. That's what he did. Therefore,
he's a grepping loon.
>> You're off on a tangent again; the Bible is not an academic source. We're
>> talking about academic sources. therefore, we are not talking about the
>> Bible.
>> Clear?
> Academia has studied the Bible for years and rightly so in my opinion.
Yes, as a document, not as an academic source. We're talking about academic
sources, not "Things academics have studied".
You're going off on a tangent agian.
>> You are missing my point; is that deliberate or accidental? Do I need to
>> explain it again, or are you just choosing to ignore it because it
>> doesn't
>> fit with your faith-based worldview?
>
> I'm not ignoring it, I'm point out that not agreeing with peers can end
> your career
Can you give me an example of that happening in the last 100 years in
academia?
>> Because we're interested in scientific viewpoints, not faith-based ones.
> So with regard to gay marriage I';d expect some sort of chemical test
> or something factual tell me why gay people can't use the term married.
And again I say; we're talking about _Scientific_ viewpoints. Gay marriage
is not a scientific issue. Stop going off on tangents.
>> Did any of them provide evidence to support _his claim_ about reoffence
>> statistics dropping? Did any of them even mention it?
> I didn't expect them to considering NO test like this has ever been done.
So in other words, no; there is absolutely no evidence to support his claim.
So in accepting it as true, you are adopting a faith-based approach; he said
it, and therefore you believe it, without evidence and without question.
> You've claimed that no one else has joined the two test/studies you are
> going to do,
> so will you accept you must also be wrong because there's no evidence
> of any one else doing the same therefore they can't be validated, which
> therefore makes you wrong.
Eh? That makes no sense; can you explain it more clearly?
>> And yet you chose to believe the statisttic reported in that newspaper
>> article,
> I';ve seen nothing to dispute then other than idiots that think hard
> labour
> was the course and I found no evidence of hard labour in reducing
> reoffending
> in the last 200 years.
B8ut you've also seen nothing to support it; accepting it simply on the word
of the Sherriff (who is, as someone pointed out, a politician with a
political agenda) is faith-based.
>> even though it didn't fit with the other evidence you yourself found
>> (those crime stats you linked to); why?
> What other evidence didn't it fit in with ?
Which bit of "those crime stats you linked to" did you not read?
>> Can you explain to me how that's a relevant question here,
> Buy actually understanding what said even on a so called reliable and
> reputable site.
*heh* Davem you believe a politician when he says, without any evidence,
that he's reduced reoffending by 70%; what exactly do you think you know
about reliable sources?
>
>>other than the
>> fact that it caters to your sick little obsession with talking about
>> rape?
>> Seriously, Dave, has there ever been a discussion about _anything_ that
>> you haven't tried to turn into a discussion about rape?
> It's because it's an emotional crime
No, Dave, it's because you're fucking obsessive on the subject. But I have
no intention of providing wank material for you; I'm not going to discuss
it, so stop trying to force every single discussion you ever have round to
that subject.
>> They did actually test the original fabric. Repairs had been done after
>> fire damage, but not to the parts they tested.
> That is untrue the section they were given to test was a small corner that
> had been repaired.
No, Dave, really not true. I don't know what your source is, but it's wrong,
or you've misunderstood what it said.
>> That's what all researchers do, Dave; we don't sit here, zoned out and
>> parrotting whatever we're told. We're paid to think for ourselves; that's
>> what we do for a living.
> I thought you claimed no one made money out of such things.
No-one gets rich off it, certainly.
>
>> The fact that we often don't agree with your faith-based beliefs doesn't
>> mean we're not thinking for ourselves.
> I don;t base my beliefs aroubnd faith.
Yes, you do. it's not religious faith, but you go with your gut feeling, or
with what some (unqualified or heavily biased) person says, and you don't
check for evidence, and you don't allow for any other viewpoints to intrude.
That's a faith-based approach.
>>> It seemed starnge that it took 590 years before someone changed it from
>>> weather ballon to spy ballon, considering there >
>>
>> I'm going to assume there's a typo in there, as well as a missing
>> sentence
>> ending. Would you like to try again?
> For 50 years it was claimed to be a weather ballon, you also believed it
> was a
> weather balloon,
I believed it was mre likely to be a weather balloon than an alien vessel,
certainly.
>> We';re talking about _modern_ academia, Dave, not mediaeval academia.
>> Things have changed. Here in the Western World, in the 21st century, we
>> don't lock people up for heliocentrism, so that's simply not a relevant
>> comment.
> we don;t now beacuse it'll be pretty stupid now that most peolpe know the
> a lot more about the world.
> But we still have such things as the official secrets act.
Not in academia we don't. Stick to what we're actually talking about please,
and stop going off on tangents.
>> But in order to know whether it needs reinventing, you need to stdy the
>> original wheel, correct?
> Yes.
>
>> In other words, you can neither re-invent the old stuff, nor create new
>> stuff, without referring to the old stuff.
> In most cases yes.
In other words, it is absolutely necessary to refer back to what other
people have said in order to do any sort of research.
>>>> No, Dave, you don't. For example, you've repeatedly accused me of
>>>> believing that the Bible is true.
>>> I never said that.
>>
>> You have done, repeatedly.
> Show me that as a proper quote, what I;ve said is that you believed the
> Bible was a correct translation of teh original scripts and that there was
> no bias in them and that they were accurate.
Yes, that's right; whereas in fact, I've never claimed thast the Bible is
accurate at all; I don't believe for a moment that it is. Nor have I ever
claimed that there's no bias in the Bible; that would be a ridiculous
belief, because of _course_ it's biased.
In other words, everything you think I believe about the Bible is _wrong_.
You're _wrong_. Try to get that through your thick skull. Use a nailgun if
that will help.
H
H Duffy
"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
>
> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:666uvuF...@mid.individual.net...
> Well I think it was you and no one else has said it wasn't.
_I've_ said it wasn't. And I would know, wouldn't I?
But once agian, you're taking your faith-based approach; now that you've got
it into your head that it's a picture of me, nothing will shake that belief,
even though it's self-evidence that I would know better than anyone else.
>> I've never worn a Whisky dave mask. Therefore, if the person in the photo
>> was wearing a Whisky Dave mask, it wasn't me. Clear?
>
> You are incredibly stupid aren't you.
> I NEVER said anyone was wearing such a mask, but that was the title
> or the description that the picture came under I never said any one was
> wearing any mask did you not understand that.
But that's the description that was given, yes? So you're saying that the
description was in fact inaccurate, yes?
If the description was inaccurate, what makes you think it was a picture of
me?
H
Troia
...
> You are incredibly stupid aren't you.
Dave, you've been saying that a lot lately. And it comes off as
sounding stupid.
I know you & Hester slug it out all the time, but there's a tone there
that wasn't in the past, and when I read this same insult over & over,
well, it just detracts from whatever you're saying, right or wrong.
I'm not playing prude, I just wish you'd drop it, as I'm probably one of
the few people that still reads these arguments (better to read than to
be one of the principles, I say.)
And you ought to know, even in the depths of major disagreement, that
Hester is quite obviously -not- stupid. (Neither are you, though you
are a horrendous speller & typist, as well as often having a whole
different take on things than most people who post here.)
-- Troia
ags...@yahoo.com
> whisky-dave wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > You are incredibly stupid aren't you.
>
> Dave, you've been saying that a lot lately. And it comes off as
> sounding stupid.
>
> I know you & Hester slug it out all the time, but there's a tone there
> that wasn't in the past, and when I read this same insult over & over,
> well, it just detracts from whatever you're saying, right or wrong.
<SNIP>
I agree. It should be implied that Hester is stupid. Therefore, in the
future, please do not focus on her ignorance, but the subject on hand.
Also, I think I saw a picture of the Hester and I don't think it
warrants a second look.
Regards...
Jennie Kermode
> We don't insist they _buy_ the books, just that they read them. And we give
> them access to a library, so they can find books,and read them, free of
> cost.
Whilst I sympathise with your argument here, my experience at
university was that the library never contained anything like enough
copies of important books. Often I was simply unable to get hold of them
there and, since I didn't have money to buy them, I often just had to
get by on my wits and on what I could gather from carefully listening in
to other people. I would have bloody loved it if I'd had the option,
back then, of using the internet to back this up. Whilst the library
would always have been my first choice, often it simply wasn't available
as a choice at all.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
Jennie Kermode
> The major bit of writing academic papers is that they are correct in what
> they state.
> of the big bang and you happen to be say Steven Hawkins there's few
> cites you can include you really have to think for yourself.
Aside from all the other points which have been made, this
really does depend on what you're studying. It's one thing to have your
own ideas at the cutting edge of theoretical physics; quite another if,
say, you're studying for a law degree, where what matters is
demonstrating a thorough understanding of extant ideas and information.
whisky-dave
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> news:fto3oo$ok3$1@qmul...
>>
>> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:666uvuF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> But if it is as you've described it, it isn't a picture of _me_.
>> Well I think it was you and no one else has said it wasn't.
>
> _I've_ said it wasn't. And I would know, wouldn't I?
> But once agian, you're taking your faith-based approach; now that you've
> got it into your head that it's a picture of me, nothing will shake that
> belief, even though it's self-evidence that I would know better than
> anyone else.
No you don't, the photographer would know more than you.
>>> I've never worn a Whisky dave mask. Therefore, if the person in the
>>> photo was wearing a Whisky Dave mask, it wasn't me. Clear?
>>
>> You are incredibly stupid aren't you.
>> I NEVER said anyone was wearing such a mask, but that was the title
>> or the description that the picture came under I never said any one was
>> wearing any mask did you not understand that.
>
> But that's the description that was given, yes?
Yes.
> So you're saying that the description was in fact inaccurate, yes?
yes, as my friends said it didn;t lok like me.
> If the description was inaccurate, what makes you think it was a picture
> of me?
because it was.
whisky-dave
"Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethiscom> wrote in message
news:48001eba$0$47555$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
> whisky-dave wrote:
> ...
>> You are incredibly stupid aren't you.
>
> Dave, you've been saying that a lot lately. And it comes off as sounding
> stupid.
>
> I know you & Hester slug it out all the time, but there's a tone there
> that wasn't in the past, and when I read this same insult over & over,
> well, it just detracts from whatever you're saying, right or wrong.
I'm using the same tactic Hester does.
When anyone disagree with her they're a fuckwit or a loon etc...
and it's acceptable for Hester to come out with .
"demonstrates that you are both an arrogant prick and a fucking moron."
> I'm not playing prude, I just wish you'd drop it, as I'm probably one of
> the few people that still reads these arguments (better to read than to be
> one of the principles, I say.)
>
> And you ought to know, even in the depths of major disagreement, that
> Hester is quite obviously -not- stupid.
Then she acts like it.
because she either mistakenly misquotes which I don't believe
and she thinks I'm stupid enough to fall for it.
> (Neither are you, though you are a horrendous speller & typist, as well as
> often having a whole different take on things than most people who post
> here.)
Regarding this photo that Hester says doens't exist who do you believe,
but at most how does hester know that the photo doesn;t exist and never has
done ?
whisky-dave
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> news:fto3ol$ok2$1@qmul...
>>
>> "H Duffy" <hester...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:664aj4F...@mid.individual.net...
>>> That's right. But of course, they don't _need_ every book ever written;
>>> most of them will be irrelevant to whatever they happen to be doing. So
>>> we
>>> just make sure that there are enough _relevant_ books in the library,
>>> plus
>>> accessible journal articles, that they can complete the work they're
>>> assigned.
>>
>> There's rarely enough money in any but the highest funded universities
>> to have sufficient books for everyone.
>
> Not true. There's not enough money to have enough copies of every single
> book for everyone to have one, but that's not necessary.
>>> But since the Roswell incident isn't actually on any curricula that I'm
>>> aware of,
>> It was on a friends who course was unexplained UFO's it was
>> called Ufology or something he got a degree in it, not that it's very
>> useful
>> but the idea was not that he find the truth but how he went about
>> finding the truth
>> which should be relevant to any so called researcher.
>> Whereas yuo called anyone that didn;t agree with the weather ballon a
>> liar.
>
> Can you show me where I did that?
No, but I'm not prepared to go searching any more than you are.
>>> We're tlaking about undergraduate students in Universities. Stick to
>>> that.
>>> OK?
>> My friend was an undergraduate student at UEL, you may have heard of it.
>
> And how is your friend relevant to this discussion?
His university degree project was to interview those that have either seen
UFOs
(that's not alien spaceships BTW) or have had some experience of
unexplained phenomena.
>
>>> What makes you think proving them wrong is a problem?
>> well I know captial punishent aka the death penalty DOES reduce
>> reoffending
>> I can find loads of evidence of it. But can yuo find any research that
>> supports such an idea.
>
> Are you seriously asking me whether there is evidence that dead people
> don't commit crimes?
No I'm asking you whether there;'s any journal or official academic paper
that has data that shows that capital punishment reduced reoffending
You either can or you can't.
>>>as you seem to think; academics thrive on disagreement.
>> Not with their peers they don't.
>
> Yes, Dave, with their peers, they do! I grew up with academics, I am now
> an academic myself; I really do know what I'm talking about.
That doesn't prove anything.
>>> I found a number of eminent historians whose point of view supports what
>>> I
>>> said.
>> It supports what you said because they support what was said at the time
>> they showed nothing new.
>
> that's right; I wasn't making any new claims, I was talking about what
> happened several hundred years ago. You said it didn't, they said it did.
> They know more than you do.
They know what they have been told to believe mor than either of us.
>The evidence supports what I claimed. You chose to dismiss it, and claim
>that it was biased, simply because it supported what I said rather than
>what you said.
> That makes you pretty much like a Creationist who refuses to accept the
> fossil record because it doesn't agree with what they believe.
But you or they haven't presented any such 'fossil'
>
>> But can you prove that they are actual historians looking at History
>> rather than
>> just supporting what the authorised version of the Boble says.
>
> Eh? They weren't talking about the Bible, they were talking about the
> Pope's reaction to Galileo, and yes, they were proper historians.
But they didn't know the Pope did they, and the only records they had
we what the catholic church said Galileo said.
>>>That's about as close to proof as you can get when talking about
>>>renaissance history. You haven't accepted that those historians know more
>>>than you do about the subject,
>> Why should I, well not about that particular point anyway,.
>> They probably haven't looked at any new evidence in 30 years.
>
> It being history, there isn't any new evidence, you fucking moron.
Theere has been new evidence of most things over the years.
Teh catholic church rejected anything for about 300+ years that
disproved anything they said, regarding where we are in the 'heavens'
Galilaio proved that, withyt eh support of other Astronmers of course.
> They have, however, looked at the evidence from the actual time in
> quetsion, while you havewn't. So yes, damn right they know more about it
> than you do, and the fact that you could suggest otherwise demonstrates
> that you are both an arrogant prick and a fucking moron.
What evidence have they looked at ?
They show no evidence other than what the views the catholic church had at
the time.
Those so called historians used documents used by writers of popular history
rather than original documents from the time.
>> It's not a gut feeling it was evidence via a professor of astronomy that
>> has recently studied the subject in enough depth to teach it.
>
> Astronomy is not history. He may know a lot aout the stars and planets,
> but that doesn't mean he knows the first thing about a renaissance Pope's
> reactions to Galileo's work.
But that was part of his studies, but tehn whebn yuo wer challeneged
Then just find this part that say Galilaio
"find ANYTHING in the book, as Galileo wrote it and submitted it for
permission to publish, that associates Simplicio with the Pope rather than
with conservative philosophers."
But when this task was set you failed to do it, you just pointed to
what someone else believed at the time.
Now why can';t you just quote the section in Galileo words that
you claim indicates that the Pope was simpleton.
I'm not interested in beliefs just the text.
>>> In that, you're really very like the people, whom you crticise on a
>>> regular basis, who believe every word of the Bible because they simply
>>> _know_ it's true, no matter what the evidence says.
>> That's not me.
>
> it really is; look just a couple of paragraphs up; you're claiming to know
> more about history than historians who have spent their lives studying the
> subject.
No not that I know more but someone else does in fact more than one person.
True historians look at evidence not just what other historians have said in
the past.
> They also pull exactly the same trick you've just pulled; they'll find,
> say, an eminent lawyer, and then claim that because _he_ says evolution
> didn't happen, they are too looking at the evidence. This is just like you
> claiming that you have looked at the evidence because you read something
> an astronomer said about Galileo; the lawyer may be eminent, but he's not
> a biologist, so his views on evolution are not relevant. And your
> astronomer may be an excellent astronomer, but he's not an historian, so
> his views on history are actually not relevant, particularly when they
> come into conflict the views of actual historians who have studied the
> subject.
But your so called historians aren't looked at evidence they are looking at
previous
records kept by the catholic church that's all.
Just like asking the military what happened at Roswell you'll get the same
story
a weather balloon over and over again for the 50 years until the time limit
ended.
Then they came out with spy balloon.
>> I've no idea whether the Turin shroud has an imprint of Jesus all I want
>> them to do it a proper test for the age of the shroud at the very least.
>> Rather than have to accept a corner that was know to have been replaced
>> after a fire.
>
> Which is not what they did. I don't know where you've got that idea,
From the news reprots of the time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4210369.stm
Raymond Rogers says his research and chemical tests show the material used
in the 1988 radiocarbon analysis was cut from a medieval patch woven into
the shroud to repair fire damage.
http://www.physorg.com/news123173694.html
Professor Christopher Ramsey of Oxford wants to check the theory that some
type of contamination of the cloth caused the carbon-dating tests run in
1988 to mistakenly peg the shroud as a medieval forgery
Do you think you know more about this than Professor Ramsey ?
> but it's incorrect. The material which was tested was from the original
> fabric of the shrough, not from a later repair.
>
>>>> I didn't call him a fuckwit, I pointed out he was a grepping loon,
>>>> which
>>> he was.
>> Because he disagreed with you ?
>
> No, because he's a grepping loon he greps for certain terms,a nd then
> leaps in with a standard response, regardless of the context of the
> discussion or where it's being held, and then he wanders off to do the
> same thing elsewhere. That's what a grepping loon is. That's what he did.
> Therefore, he's a grepping loon.
Didn't seem like that to me. He seemed to know far more about it than you.
You were the one claiming that Galileo wrote it in Latin when in fact he
wrote it in italian.
>
>>> Because we're interested in scientific viewpoints, not faith-based ones.
>> So with regard to gay marriage I';d expect some sort of chemical test
>> or something factual tell me why gay people can't use the term married.
>
> And again I say; we're talking about _Scientific_ viewpoints. Gay marriage
> is not a scientific issue. Stop going off on tangents.
So it's not decided from a scientific viewpoint so what organisation can
ignore science and scientific evidence ?
>>> Did any of them provide evidence to support _his claim_ about reoffence
>>> statistics dropping? Did any of them even mention it?
>> I didn't expect them to considering NO test like this has ever been done.
>
> So in other words, no; there is absolutely no evidence to support his
> claim.
And none to distute it.
> So in accepting it as true,
What do you mean accat that it is true to yuo accept that Texas and the
prison
and the sheriff himself all exists.
>you are adopting a faith-based approach; he said it, and therefore you
>believe it, without evidence and without question.
If you can show me evidence that this prison doesn't exist or that no one
painted
any thing pink in this prison or you can find evidence that it was all a lie
then
do so.
>
>> You've claimed that no one else has joined the two test/studies you are
>> going to do,
>> so will you accept you must also be wrong because there's no evidence
>> of any one else doing the same therefore they can't be validated, which
>> therefore makes you wrong.
>
> Eh? That makes no sense; can you explain it more clearly?
If as you claim no one has done the testing you have then how will you
validate them.
or is it that someone just has to see you testing in order that the results
you get are right.
>>> even though it didn't fit with the other evidence you yourself found
>>> (those crime stats you linked to); why?
>> What other evidence didn't it fit in with ?
>
> Which bit of "those crime stats you linked to" did you not read?
The bit were you said they didn;t fit in you've yet to say what you mean,
as first of all ther was no data, then I pointed it out and now it doesn;t
fit it ?
Please explain why it doesn't fit in.
What were you expecting to see.
>>> Can you explain to me how that's a relevant question here,
>> Buy actually understanding what said even on a so called reliable and
>> reputable site.
>
> *heh* Davem you believe a politician when he says, without any evidence,
What do you mean without any evidence.
> that he's reduced reoffending by 70%; what exactly do you think you know
> about reliable sources?
But I original called it a test nothing more that's why you tried to claim I
said
study, because no study has yet been done.
If it needs to be proved then that's the next stage.
>>> That's what all researchers do, Dave; we don't sit here, zoned out and
>>> parrotting whatever we're told. We're paid to think for ourselves;
>>> that's
>>> what we do for a living.
>> I thought you claimed no one made money out of such things.
>
> No-one gets rich off it, certainly.
Did I say anyone gets rich from anything.
You said no one made any money from research why did you lie yet again.
People do make money out of research quite a lot in fact, all our
researchers get a
salary and that salary is higher than a technicians salary so I guess
technicians
don't make money either, and then there's barstaff in pubs they make far
less
money than researchers so I guess you'll claim that barstaff don't make
money
from serving .
>>> The fact that we often don't agree with your faith-based beliefs doesn't
>>> mean we're not thinking for ourselves.
>> I don;t base my beliefs aroubnd faith.
>
> Yes, you do. it's not religious faith, but you go with your gut feeling,
> or with what some (unqualified or heavily biased) person says,
Everyone who disagrees withy you is unqualified or heavily biased aren't
they.
>
>>>> It seemed starnge that it took 590 years before someone changed it from
>>>> weather ballon to spy ballon, considering there >
>>>
>>> I'm going to assume there's a typo in there, as well as a missing
>>> sentence
>>> ending. Would you like to try again?
>> For 50 years it was claimed to be a weather ballon, you also believed it
>> was a
>> weather balloon,
>
> I believed it was mre likely to be a weather balloon than an alien vessel,
> certainly.
You agreed with the military because you hadn't seen the evidence
but believe what they said the evidence was, that IS NOT evidence.
You';r doing exactly the same with Galileo and whether or not he said the
Pope
was a simpleton. But where';s the evidence I want the evidence not evidence
that
someone even a so called Historian says but actual evidence quoted from
Galileo writings.
>>> But in order to know whether it needs reinventing, you need to stdy the
>>> original wheel, correct?
>> Yes.
>>
>>> In other words, you can neither re-invent the old stuff, nor create new
>>> stuff, without referring to the old stuff.
>> In most cases yes.
>
> In other words, it is absolutely necessary to refer back to what other
> people have said in order to do any sort of research.
Research is about re-searching, rather than just saying I agree with the
bloke that
did it last time.
If you keep looking at the old materail you'll neer find anything new.
>
> In other words, everything you think I believe about the Bible is _wrong_.
> You're _wrong_. Try to get that through your thick skull. Use a nailgun if
> that will help.
You argued that the translations were correct when they weren't.