Message from discussion your slip is showing...
Received: by 10.224.223.14 with SMTP id ii14mr2119129qab.3.1352243660539;
Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:14:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.66.235 with SMTP id i11mr697129vdt.7.1352243660511; Tue, 06
Nov 2012 15:14:20 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:14:20 -0800 (PST)
Injection-Info: j12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=188.8.131.52; posting-account=3o_3nAoAAABqcChZ1_OFyK0eqWoq4vXX
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1;
Trident/4.0; GTB7.4; chromeframe/22.0.1229.94; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR
2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; AskTbMYC-ST/184.108.40.20621),gzip(gfe)
Subject: Re: your slip is showing...
From: Larry Harson <larryhar...@softhome.net>
Injection-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 23:14:20 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Nov 6, 5:13=A0am, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote:
> Larry Harson wrote:
> > =A0Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > Larry Harson wrote:
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > blackhead wrote:
> > > > > > =A0Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > > > > Larry Harson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > but, evidently, someone has an inordinant control probl=
> > > > > > > > > > feels the need to police usenet newsgroups.
> > > > > > > > > > if given a vote, i'm certain i would vote for archi
> > > > > > > > > > and against the mad post flagger any day of the week.
> > > > > > > > > Do you think it's OK spamming a theory about particle phy=
> > > > > > > > > sci.math and sci.physics.electromag?
> > > > > > > > > I don't.
> > > > > > > but anyway, from what little i've gleaned from
> > > > > > > archi's titles and cursory glances of his posts
> > > > > > > he maintains that quantum mechanics is reducible
> > > > > > > to entailments of the =3DMaxwell=3D equations
> > > > > > > so, you, are just plain flat out wrong that
> > > > > > > he is posting off topic to sci.physics.electromag
> > > "titles and posts"
> > > obviously considering other threads and other posts.
> > > > > > Really?
> > > > > > Most of it seems relevant to particle physics or sci.physics su=
> > > > > > this:
> > > > > > "In Old Physics, they had spins
> > > > > > of 1/2, 1, 3/2 but in Old Physics they got those spin numbers f=
> > > > > > Algebra demands and demands divorced of geometry or a true theo=
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > the Standard Model is just a patchwork quilt of fake physics."
> > > > > > Which part of the OP do you think has a place in
> > > > > > sci.physics.electromag?
> > > > > here's a few;
> > > > I was asking about THIS thread.
> > > do you really say that this one thread is alone
> > > being considered by this statement?
> > > you say;
> > > "" Do you think it's OK spamming a theory about
> > > =A0 =A0particle physics in sci.math and sci.physics.electromag?
> > > =A0 =A0I don't.""
> > > one thread does not a "spamming" make in the context
> > > of topicallity and not sales or other such things
> > > some people have a problem with.
> > > i obviously was considering many threads and posts
> > > and inasmuch as you say "theory" i suggest that you were speaking
> > > of more than a single post or thread but the entire body of posts
> > > and threads that archi seems intent on posting to several groups
> > > =A0simultaneously, which is a common practice, and allowed by google
> > > groups.
> > > which is to say, that, if google groups objected to crossposting,
> > > googlegroups would not allow it to be done at all.
> > It comes under netiquette which includes the avoidance of cross
> > posting.
> if archi is propagandizing his pet theory and that theory includes
> aspects which are clearly of an electromagnetic nature, archi -may-
> want to shop it around where people who are all keen on electromagnetism
> would catch wind of it, and so,
> =A0crossposting is tolerated for just that sort of reason.
> archi's 'theory', -is- that quantum mechanics
> can be derived from the maxwell equations.
Fine. But in my judgement, many of his posts contain too great a ratio
of particle physics/chemistry/maths to electromagnetism to be of use
in sci.physics.electromag, and that's why I flag them. He can easily
cut and paste the sections on particle physics to that group, and the
electromag stuff over here. But of course he has no intention of doing
> you are trying to be chief moderator in
> an unmoderated newsgroup and doing
> a poor job of it.
The evidence is that I'm prepared to discuss whether or not it's fair
to flag Archie's posts, as I did on July 14th:
"Flagging posts fairly in sci.physic.electromag"
Of course, Archie didn't participate in the discussion. And neither
did you for that matter, which isn't surprising because you're not a
regular in sci.physics.electromag, are you?
> and below you say this:
> # I don't mind intelligent cross posting.
> so, why you're wasting time posting some blurb
> about how crossposting is bad form is not very "intelligent"
> you like crossposting if it fits your opinion
> of what is acceptable and 'intelligent'
> but if someone else has a different opinon of acceptable and
>you start pissing and moaning and whining about
> how it's abusively off topic.
For a start, I don't use language like that.
> now, here's how you describe archi;
> you say;> I'm not against Archie posting his theory in sci.physics.partic=
> > where it belongs. Yet despite being told this, he continues to spam in
> > a selfish way without any thought for the people within that group. He
> > comes across as a self-absorbed egotist who can't look outside of
> > himself.
> now i ask you, -who- _really_ looks like the "self absorbed egotist?"
> isn't it really =3Dyou=3D who looks like a "self absorbed egotist"
> in that you think that you and you alone are able to decide what
> is on topic in electromag whereas archi simply minds his own
> business and quietly posts his babblings where he
> thinks they are topical?
Well, actually no, which is why I asked for a discussion on the
subject in July, and you weren't here because you're not a regular
> yes, -you- look like the self absorbed egotists and archi does not.
The evidence is otherwise.
> > =A0It also includes getting your own group in order before you go aroun=
> > vandalising another, just to make a point. Have you reposted Archi's
> > posts on sci.chem, the main group you use? Nope. Did you instead
> > repost them on one you don't use? Yep. Did you even bother to post
> > them on sci.physics.particle? Nope.
> you're raving.
> i vandalized nothing,
Are you Pythagoras Uranium?
I'm assuming it was you who decided to post 20 of Archie's precious
posts in sci.physics.electromag. And then didn't bother to reply to
one of my questions there. Of course, it might not be you in which
case I'm wrong and I apologise for jumping to the wrong conclusion.
The other possibility is that it was indeed you and you have no
interest whatsoever in participating in sci.physics.electromag, yet
you decided to dump on it.
>and why you keep posting in to a thread
> that you have flagged for abuse is asinine.
Because the original thread was "charge is geometry and spin is
what?", and I gave my reasons for why I don't think it belongs in
sci.physics.electromag. You then change the subject to a troll: "your
slip is showing", and end up poisoning the other newsgroups with a
subject no one else wants to really see.
> > > > So again, what content do you think from Archie's
> > > > original posting is relevant to sci.physics.electromag?
> > > in the first post of this thread, archi is yammering
> > > about "charge" as it relates to "The Standard Model"
> > > =3D=3D=3D
> > > archie says:https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/8JXMY9nMKHk/Pv2W=
> > > No-one of the Standard Model ever said that the charges of physics
> > > were the 3 and only 3 geometries of mathematics. No-one of the
> > > Standard Model ever said that the electron was hyperbolic geometry
> > > while the proton was elliptic geometry.
> > > =3D=3D=3D
> > > here's how wikipedia describes the "standard model";
> > > [sure, wikipedia is good enough for this purpose...]
> > > =3D=3D=3Dhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
> > > The Standard Model of particle physics is
> > > a theory concerning the electromagnetic,
> > > weak, and strong nuclear interactions , which
> > > =A0mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles
> > > =3D=3D=3D
> > > now, if archi is yammering opn about the Standard Model
> > > and this Standard Model concerns itself with electromagnetic
> > > properties of subatomic particles then, -you- tell -me- how
> > > archi's post is not topical in your august opinion.
> > Well, if YOU bothered to read his OP as I suggested, then its obvious
> > he's talking about spin. Look at the title: "charge is geometry and
> > spin is what?". Further down: "So now I need to finish this up on the
> > spin". Then right at the end: "My guess is direction of spin relative
> > to an axis". So you tell me: What has spin got to do with
> > electromagnetism?
> -maybe- archi thinks that spinning charged particles
> generate a magnetic field of sorts.
> strange things have happened, with copper coils and magnets
You're competent as a chemist and well capable of reading and
understanding what he posted, which has nothing to do with spinning
charge. He thinks spin is connected with geometry. Face it, it has
nothing to do with electromagnetism, and you've shown yourself as a
dishonest, closed minded bigot.
> > Your posts on sci.chem are competent, yet you seem to have reading
> > comprehension problems here, or worse still, don't understand what
> > electromagnetism is. If so, then you shouldn't be sticking your nose
> > in something you haven't a clue about, should you?
> so, you deny that the so-called "Standard Model"
> concerns itself with electromagnetic behaviors -of- particles
> and if archi wants to yammer about particles and their
> electromagnetic behavior in a set of usenet newsgroups,
> archi can do so even if not each and every post is
> explicittly and narrowly focused on the aspects
> of electromagnetism that strike -your- fancy.
If you want to see how things should be done, then take a look at the
"Faraday's Paradox" thread posted in October by pengkuan Em. His posts
are useful because they lead to discussion, that are relevant here,
despite him thinking there is some flaw in modern physics. Neither
does he poison sci.chem, sci,math etc with irrelevant cross posting.
Even better, he updates his theory and page when his errors have been
Those are the standards I judge Archie's posts by, and his are abusive
in most cases mainly because of unthinking cross-posting. Note that he
is still posting cantor's diagonal argument to sci.physics and
sci.physics.electromag, where it has no place.
> you are still wrong to flag archi's posts for abuse
> as none of them fit the criteria for abuse as set
> out -by- googlegroups.
> Report Abuse
> Google takes abuse of its services very seriously.
> We're committed to dealing with such abuse according
> to the laws in your country of residence. When you
> submit a report, we'll investigate it and take the
> appropriate action. We'll get back to you only if
> we require additional details or have more information to share.
> Group name: sci.physics.electromag
> Subject: is Google committing a crime of freedom of speech??
> Author: Archimedes Plutonium
> Not abuse
> This content has been incorrectly marked as abuse
> and does not contain any of the following:
> Hateful or violent content
> Illegal pornography
> Personal or private information
> Illegal content according to the laws of my country
> Content violating our Terms of Service
It becomes spam when he spams his book and theory with irrelevant
topics in sci.physics.electromag, including Cantor's diagonal
argument. It becomes spam when he posts to advertise, rather than ask
> > > > I flagged this thread because I don't see its relevance here.
> > > it looks to me like you are just plain flat out wrong in doing so.
> > > > So please put me right if you think I'm wrong.
> > > maybe you should actually read a post
> > > before you decide it is off topic.
> > > it makes it -look- as if you...
> > > it seems as if this will fall on deaf ears so,
> > > =A0i'll "skip it" as it were.
> > > > Neither do I flag all his
> > > > posts, just those which are more in the field of particle physics a=
> > > > shamelessly using the name "Maxwell" to justify their inclusion in
> > > > sci.physics.electromag.
> > > it is -possible- that "particle physics" and electromagnetism
> > > are not entirely divorced one from the other and considerable
> > > =A0overlap is inevitable
> > > and so, -crossposting- is a reasonable action -and-
> > > one that is -not- dissallowed by googlegroups.
> > > so, if your major objection -is- "crossposting"
> > > maybe, perhaps, you should take that up with googlegroups first,
> > > before you take it upion yourself to accuse anyone of being
> > > "abusive" to a particular usenet newsgroup.
> > I don't mind intelligent cross posting. But Archie posts Cantor's
> > diagonal argument over here,and into the physics groups. He then posts
> > particle physics into the maths forum. He hasn't got a clue.
> this must be -someone- who shall remain nameless,
> being a "self absorbed egotist" again.
> what would you call someone who takes it upon itself
> to make topicallity decisions for other people
> in an unmoderated usenet newsgroup?
> junior napolean?
> self appointed tryant?
In my case, someone who cares about the usefulness of
sci.physics.electroma for people interested in electromagnetism.
Secondly, the flagging is democratic and open to everyone. Again,
you've shown you lack sensible judgement.