We All failed (regarding the definition of a crackpot)
lamoo...@sbcglobal.net
And nary a single individual was capable of answering the question
absent coloring the question with their own interpretation of it. Thus
answering their own interpretation of it, as it were, as opposed to
answering the actual question posed.
Big difference.
Which difference Einstein eloquently brought to light, in his time.
Think about it. And if necessary read every post that addressed the
question. None of which actually addressed the question itself. All of
which addressed their interpretation of it.
And this is not a personal make wrong. It' merely an impersonal
observation. In regard to science, and the role the scientist plays in
the unfoldment of it.
Apparently (this being merely one interpretation of the results of this
experiement):
"The reason brilliant scientists seem to come along only once in a very
long period of time (in human terms of time) is that rarely can a human
being rise above their tendency to interpret a question in the absence
of their conditioning as to what the question is really asking (or what
the question actually means). Which conditioning skews the results
(called answer).
The question I posed had little to do with the meaning of the word
"crackpot" and had everything to do with the meaning of the word
"what". Whilst everyone focused on the former, no one focused on the
later.
And of course, should there be any responses to this post, according to
historical indications, most will be posts articulating their
*personal* offense at what I have penned.
"How dare you"....etc. etc. etc.
So be it. Call me a "crackpot". I don't mind.
Sincerely,
Lar
P.S. for one (possible) intelligent answer to the question posed, I am
available to answer.
Lol.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
<lamoo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1138156160....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> To wit: The question was: What defines a "crackpot".
It is his/her "works" that defines a crackpot.
It is the existing body of experimental evidence that highlights
the cracks.
It is his/her peers that declares/labels crackpot.
Any other word games you want to play?
David A. Smith
lamoo...@sbcglobal.net
You Sir are smug.
And Full of Yourself.
Words are meaningless in the absence of an interpretation of what they
mean. Which principle escapes the reality of math. Factually.
And your interpretation of the meaning of them (words) is but one
(amongst many).
What you fail to perceive is the obvious David. But the obvious is
hidden from view, for you.
To wit: (in fundamental terms) potentiality collapses into reality
relative to the observer (including all that implies). I.e time, date,
place, form and function of the experiement.
And You Sir, with all due respect, confirm my argument.
You respond to your own biases. Not to mine. Which is not your fault.
It's like gravity.
Lar
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
<lamoo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1138163454.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
...
> And You Sir, with all due respect, confirm my argument.
Goodbye, and good luck. I deal with enough bullsh*t at work.
<plonk>
David A. Smith
Androcles
<lamoo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1138156160....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> To wit: The question was: What defines a "crackpot".
>
> And nary a single individual was capable of answering the question
> absent coloring the question with their own interpretation of it.
What the fuck did you expect?
Thus
> answering their own interpretation of it, as it were, as opposed to
> answering the actual question posed.
>
> Big difference.
>
> Which difference Einstein eloquently brought to light, in his time.
> Think about it.
No, fuck you. You think about it.
Androcles.
Bill Hobba
>
> And nary a single individual was capable of answering the question
> absent coloring the question with their own interpretation of it.
So the definition I gave from a dictionary was colored with my own
interpretation?
> Thus
> answering their own interpretation of it, as it were, as opposed to
> answering the actual question posed.
>
> Big difference.
>
> Which difference Einstein eloquently brought to light, in his time.
> Think about it. And if necessary read every post that addressed the
> question. None of which actually addressed the question itself. All of
> which addressed their interpretation of it.
>
> And this is not a personal make wrong. It' merely an impersonal
> observation. In regard to science, and the role the scientist plays in
> the unfoldment of it.
>
> Apparently (this being merely one interpretation of the results of this
> experiement):
>
> "The reason brilliant scientists seem to come along only once in a very
> long period of time (in human terms of time) is that rarely can a human
> being rise above their tendency to interpret a question in the absence
> of their conditioning as to what the question is really asking (or what
> the question actually means). Which conditioning skews the results
> (called answer).
>
> The question I posed had little to do with the meaning of the word
> "crackpot" and had everything to do with the meaning of the word
> "what".
No - it had everything to do with your own agenda which obviously is not to
discuss physics.
> Whilst everyone focused on the former, no one focused on the
> later.
>
> And of course, should there be any responses to this post, according to
> historical indications, most will be posts articulating their
> *personal* offense at what I have penned.
>
> "How dare you"....etc. etc. etc.
>
> So be it. Call me a "crackpot". I don't mind.
If the shoe fits ...............
>
> Sincerely,
> Lar
>
> P.S. for one (possible) intelligent answer to the question posed, I am
> available to answer.
And who is to judge that? - we have seen it all before.
Bill
>
> Lol.
>
Bill Hobba
<lamoo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1138163454.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>> Dear lamoore0777:
>>
>> <lamoo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:1138156160....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > To wit: The question was: What defines a "crackpot".
>>
>> It is his/her "works" that defines a crackpot.
>> It is the existing body of experimental evidence that highlights
>> the cracks.
>> It is his/her peers that declares/labels crackpot.
>>
>> Any other word games you want to play?
>>
>> David A. Smith
>
> You Sir are smug.
And you are not?
>
> And Full of Yourself.
>
A review of your posts does not engender confidence in that regard.
>
> Words are meaningless in the absence of an interpretation of what they
> mean. Which principle escapes the reality of math. Factually.
>
And the factual meanings of crackpot you were given should have been the end
of it - but of course your agenda was not to discuss crackpot.
>
> And your interpretation of the meaning of them (words) is but one
> (amongst many).
>
So a dictionary is not valid? Bizarre. Crackpot - 'An eccentric person,
especially one with bizarre ideas.' Logic forces the obvious conclusion -
except for those like you who wish to redefine reason to their whims.
>
> What you fail to perceive is the obvious David. But the obvious is
> hidden from view, for you.
>
Things only you perceive and hidden from others? - such are called delusions
by professionals.
>
> To wit: (in fundamental terms) potentiality collapses into reality
> relative to the observer (including all that implies). I.e time, date,
> place, form and function of the experiement.
>
> And You Sir, with all due respect, confirm my argument.
And you sir confirm what we all suspected from the start.
Bye Crank
Bill
FrediFizzx
|
| And nary a single individual was capable of answering the question
| absent coloring the question with their own interpretation of it. Thus
| answering their own interpretation of it, as it were, as opposed to
| answering the actual question posed.
Take it to alt.flame ya freakin' moronic jackass. They got some pros
over there that will put you to shame. LOL!
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Dirk Van de moortel
In this regard the one who failed is you.
You clearly failed to absorb the concrete and detailed answers
that were given to the question, for the simple reason that you
had your private answer in your pocket before you even
formulated the question: "Innocence".
If by now you haven't realized that your personal version of the
concept of innocence is void, then you certainly suffer from
"your kind of innocence" as well.
Dirk Vdm
Bilge
>The question I posed had little to do with the meaning of the word
>"crackpot" and had everything to do with the meaning of the word
>"what".
Then why didn't you ask, ``What is the definition of `what'?''
While that question is logically unsound, given that you would be
using the word you want defined, at least it actually poses the
question you claim you intended to ask.
> Whilst everyone focused on the former, no one focused on the
>later.
Right off hand, I'd guess the reason is that everyone assumed that
``crackpot'' wasn't intended to be a synonym for ``what.'' Perhaps on
your planet, it is.
>And of course, should there be any responses to this post, according to
>historical indications, most will be posts articulating their
>*personal* offense at what I have penned.
So, I gather that you just needed the attention, even if it was
all negative?
>"How dare you"....etc. etc. etc.
OK. "How dare you"....etc. etc. etc.
>So be it. Call me a "crackpot". I don't mind.
Sure. No problem. You're a crackpot. Feel better now?
>Sincerely,
>Lar
>
>P.S. for one (possible) intelligent answer to the question posed, I am
>available to answer.
Don't put yourself out. I'm sure everyone will get over the
inital disappointment of being ignored.
PD
lamoo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> To wit: The question was: What defines a "crackpot".
>
> And nary a single individual was capable of answering the question
> absent coloring the question with their own interpretation of it. Thus
> answering their own interpretation of it, as it were, as opposed to
> answering the actual question posed.
>
> Big difference.
>
I'm struggling to extract your point.
It's true that a word, even if the general meaning is agreed upon by
concensus (otherwise language would have absolutely no value) also has
an element of subjectivity and personal interpretation. This is why the
statement of some words has to be coupled with context in order to
deduce meaning. (Androcles seems to be having special problems with
this.)
So what?
If it is your intent to apply the same argument to science, saying that
theories are imbued with subjectivity and interpretation, this is dead
on the money. It also does not change anything. A theory, almost by
definition, includes a guess about a explanation whose validity is not
certain. This is how theory extends into the unknown. If all science
did was catalog the known, it would not serve any purpose.
How the unknown, including the guess about the explanation that is part
and parcel with the theory, becomes (more) known is *experiment*. That
is, the theory must apply the explanation to predict some verifiable
behavior that is *not* known, but which can be tested through
observation, controlled or uncontrolled. If the guess correctly
predicts the outcome of that observation, then we can be more certain
that our guess about the unknown is upgraded to the
more-known-than-unknown.
It is still a guess? Certainly. Are there other possible guesses? Most
certainly. Part of the art of experimentation is to devise a
*discriminating* test, one that can tell which one of two competing
guesses is the right one.
PD
AllYou!
A public forum dedicated to matters of science should be a medium for the free
flow of ideas, thoughts, questions, and even bad information. Those who are
"crackpots" will expose themselves as such on their own to the extent that they
can be defined as such. So why do others find it necessary to do so?
There are many other fora which are exclusive in nature, and which can protect
the purity of scientific thought that there is no valid reason to attempt to
transform a public forum to one of exclusivity by attempting humiliation and
intimidation. Those who engage in such practices obviously believe that science
is fragile, or they have no confidence in the extent of their own knowledge of
science.
Only those who fear freedom of expression attempt to stifle it.
AllYou!
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:bnIBf.208890$6M1.7...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> <lamoo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1138156160....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> To wit: The question was: What defines a "crackpot".
>
> In this regard the one who failed is you.
I'm sure you feel that way.
> You clearly failed to absorb the concrete and detailed answers
> that were given to the question, for the simple reason that you
> had your private answer in your pocket before you even
> formulated the question: "Innocence".
Why such anger? Do you again fear that you've been exposed as an imbecile? Why
are you so completely defensive?
> If by now you haven't realized that your personal version of the
> concept of innocence is void, then you certainly suffer from
> "your kind of innocence" as well.
So is he a crackpot too?
AllYou!
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrndtf0sp...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Another little brain who's afraid of the dark. What's the matter Bilge? Of
what are you so afraid?
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:6_CdnTFWmfn...@conversent.net...
Another interesting meta-exercise for lamoore0777:
which interesting exercise can be extracted from the above?
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138199937....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> lamoo...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> To wit: The question was: What defines a "crackpot".
>>
>> And nary a single individual was capable of answering the question
>> absent coloring the question with their own interpretation of it. Thus
>> answering their own interpretation of it, as it were, as opposed to
>> answering the actual question posed.
>>
>> Big difference.
>>
>
> I'm struggling to extract your point.
>
> It's true that a word, even if the general meaning is agreed upon by
> concensus (otherwise language would have absolutely no value) also has
> an element of subjectivity and personal interpretation. This is why the
> statement of some words has to be coupled with context in order to
> deduce meaning. (Androcles seems to be having special problems with
> this.)
Hey areshole, I don't know why you single me out here, but I'm
fairly certain most people can deduce the meaning of "arsehole"
in this context without any coupling.
Androcles.
PD
AllYou! wrote:
> <lamoo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1138156160....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > To wit: The question was: What defines a "crackpot".
>
>
> A public forum dedicated to matters of science should be a medium for the free
> flow of ideas, thoughts, questions, and even bad information.
And the free flow of bad information should be heartily accompanied by
the free flow of shredding critiques. This is the beauty of the free
flow of information.
One who enters into a "free flow" arena should not in any way feel that
it is a more sheltered environment.
It's an interesting observation, by the way, that in maximum-security
prisons, inmates are uncommonly polite to each other in everyday
conversation. Really. As a result, any comment that would be taken
lightly on the outside is usually taken much more seriously on the
inside. It's the converse of the above rule: in an environment where
freedoms are highly restricted, people are much more careful and gentle
in what they say. (No, I've never been incarcertated.)
PD
AllYou!
LOL!
You Guppies will never learn.
O
|
|
|
|
\ _ /
AllYou!
>
> AllYou! wrote:
>> <lamoo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:1138156160....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > To wit: The question was: What defines a "crackpot".
>>
>>
>> A public forum dedicated to matters of science should be a medium for the
>> free
>> flow of ideas, thoughts, questions, and even bad information.
>
> And the free flow of bad information should be heartily accompanied by
> the free flow of shredding critiques. This is the beauty of the free
> flow of information.
Absolutely. However, that's not the complaint, now is it. The complaint is
that although the bad information can be shredded if need be, there's no reason
to personally attack that person who submits that information. If the
information is bad enough, it'll be pretty evident pretty quickly, and if it's
borderline, then just shredding the information should be good enough.
But the tactics of DVM & Bilge and some others here goes much further than that,
and that's the complaint.
> One who enters into a "free flow" arena should not in any way feel that
> it is a more sheltered environment.
Once again, I agree. I have no expectations of any sheltering WRT to the
content of my posts. However, no public arena is sheltered, yet that's no
reason why a certain standard of etiquette should not be observed. And
sheltered or not, it's certainly no reason why some should try to silence
others.
> It's an interesting observation, by the way, that in maximum-security
> prisons, inmates are uncommonly polite to each other in everyday
> conversation. Really. As a result, any comment that would be taken
> lightly on the outside is usually taken much more seriously on the
> inside. It's the converse of the above rule: in an environment where
> freedoms are highly restricted, people are much more careful and gentle
> in what they say. (No, I've never been incarcertated.)
That's the worst justification for being a bully I've ever read.
PD
AllYou! wrote:
> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138203761.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > One who enters into a "free flow" arena should not in any way feel that
> > it is a more sheltered environment.
>
> Once again, I agree. I have no expectations of any sheltering WRT to the
> content of my posts. However, no public arena is sheltered, yet that's no
> reason why a certain standard of etiquette should not be observed. And
> sheltered or not, it's certainly no reason why some should try to silence
> others.
I don't know how anyone would, on a public forum, try to silence
another except by withering criticism, the very thing that works so
well in the public forum.
>
>
> > It's an interesting observation, by the way, that in maximum-security
> > prisons, inmates are uncommonly polite to each other in everyday
> > conversation. Really. As a result, any comment that would be taken
> > lightly on the outside is usually taken much more seriously on the
> > inside. It's the converse of the above rule: in an environment where
> > freedoms are highly restricted, people are much more careful and gentle
> > in what they say. (No, I've never been incarcertated.)
>
>
> That's the worst justification for being a bully I've ever read.
Not a justification at all, just an observation of two ends of the
behavior and sociological spectrum. It pays to know what one is walking
into -- especially in the case of newsgroups where participation is
entirely voluntary.
PD
AllYou!
>
> AllYou! wrote:
>> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1138203761.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > One who enters into a "free flow" arena should not in any way feel that
>> > it is a more sheltered environment.
>>
>> Once again, I agree. I have no expectations of any sheltering WRT to the
>> content of my posts. However, no public arena is sheltered, yet that's no
>> reason why a certain standard of etiquette should not be observed. And
>> sheltered or not, it's certainly no reason why some should try to silence
>> others.
>
> I don't know how anyone would, on a public forum, try to silence
> another except by withering criticism, the very thing that works so
> well in the public forum.
Well, when I first came to this forum, I came for a better understanding of the
subject matter. In doing so, I quickly found that I was expected to accept
answers given and not challenge them. That's when that attacks got personal.
So I found other ways to amuse myself for quite a while, but when I returned and
began to engage others here, one of the *regulars* made it a point to respond to
seek me out and interject himself into my conversations by calling me a
*crackpot* and advising others not to waste their time with me.
In fact, after making a post here after taking another short pause from posting
here, one here even stalked me to other NGs to smear me there! Now if that's
not an attempt at intimidating me from posting here, what is?
Since then, it's been much more of the same. One regular has a web site
dedicated to immortal fumbles, and others engage in similar tactics.
Now, be sure that I can take care of myself, and I certainly don't mind if an
idea I submit, or a challenge, or even a question is thoroughly trashed.
However, what's the point is seeking someone out to advise others not to have
dialog with them? What's the point of the web site? What's the point of
attacking others on a personal level?
If my challenges are so obnoxious, or my thoughts & ideas so unacceptable, then
why not leave me to my own devices? Why try to get me to, through smear and
intimidation, to get me to stop posting here?
>> > It's an interesting observation, by the way, that in maximum-security
>> > prisons, inmates are uncommonly polite to each other in everyday
>> > conversation. Really. As a result, any comment that would be taken
>> > lightly on the outside is usually taken much more seriously on the
>> > inside. It's the converse of the above rule: in an environment where
>> > freedoms are highly restricted, people are much more careful and gentle
>> > in what they say. (No, I've never been incarcertated.)
>>
>>
>> That's the worst justification for being a bully I've ever read.
>
> Not a justification at all, just an observation of two ends of the
> behavior and sociological spectrum. It pays to know what one is walking
> into -- especially in the case of newsgroups where participation is
> entirely voluntary.
Knowing what one is walking into is no justification for its existence.
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:Dbadnepe0vH...@conversent.net...
The tactics of exposing your blatant dishonesty for instance?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cowardice.html
>
> Now, be sure that I can take care of myself,
Yes, you can perfectly take care of your personal
self-respecting self ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Joe Fischer
>Well, when I first came to this forum, I came for a better understanding of the
>subject matter. In doing so, I quickly found that I was expected to accept
>answers given and not challenge them. That's when that attacks got personal.
If you want a better understanding, read a textbook,
and/or read popular expositions like "Was Einstein Right"
by Will (I think) and "An Old Man's Toy" by Anthony Zee.
>So I found other ways to amuse myself for quite a while, but when I returned and
>began to engage others here, one of the *regulars* made it a point to respond to
>seek me out and interject himself into my conversations by calling me a
>*crackpot* and advising others not to waste their time with me.
There are regulars here that think a casual study gives
them the knowledge to evaluate, and the subject is so complex
(except for the aggravating SR challenges) that no amount
of casual study will make an expert.
>In fact, after making a post here after taking another short pause from posting
>here, one here even stalked me to other NGs to smear me there! Now if that's
>not an attempt at intimidating me from posting here, what is?
Try writing good original articles and clearly identify
the speculative parts. Then if the evaluators object, just
ignore them.
Some people want to discuss physics, some want
to teach physics, and others just get their jollys dumping
on others.
>Since then, it's been much more of the same. One regular has a web site
>dedicated to immortal fumbles, and others engage in similar tactics.
Are you listed? I think that site reflects a humorous
flavor for the most part if the fumbler is usually rational and
just made a silly mistake.
But so many of the real nutcases make such comical
errors, it gets them on the list.
>Now, be sure that I can take care of myself, and I certainly don't mind if an
>idea I submit, or a challenge, or even a question is thoroughly trashed.
Many here are not qualified to evaluate, are you
qualified to submit an idea? While physics is not as
advanced in maturity as chemistry (in my opinion), it
is very advanced, and a rational idea must be good
physics.
Discussing an idea is completely different from
posting a hypothesis that the idea is valid.
>However, what's the point is seeking someone out to advise others not to have
>dialog with them? What's the point of the web site? What's the point of
>attacking others on a personal level?
Don't worry about the web site, if you have one listing
on it take it in fun and laugh with others about it.
I may be on it, but I haven't seen any of my listings,
and I am the most absurd of all posters.
>If my challenges are so obnoxious, or my thoughts & ideas so unacceptable, then
>why not leave me to my own devices? Why try to get me to, through smear and
>intimidation, to get me to stop posting here?
You are taking the personal aspect as more than it
is, a number of people have made it a point to challenge
many things I say, and those that I see as just looking
to feel better by putting somebody else down, I forgive
them for their unhappy efforts..
>Knowing what one is walking into is no justification for its existence.
Physics discussions can get pretty animated even
amongst the world class professional physicists, but
at least they usually act civilized.
There are one or two people here that are so
hateful and inconsiderate they need to be reported
to their Service Providers, if you don't, somebody
else will.
Everybody needs to know what Usenet abuse
is, and exercise restraint, else expect some type of
action by their Internet Service Provider.
Frankly, this group has gotten so bad with
even rational people responding to the creeps
instead of reporting them.
I will be trying to think of a way to make this
newsgroup a place where the whole family can come
and enjoy discussing physics.
So read the Usenet guidelines, and enjoy the
privileged provided by the schools and organizations
that pay for the distribution servers and expenses.
Even an ISP can be denied Usenet access if
they don't keep their customers in line.
Joe Fischer
AllYou!
As shown by this post, the dishonesty is all yours. Moreover, you're the one
who stalked me here in a childish attempt to get others to ignore me, and when
that failed, you even went so far as to find me in other NGs to harass me there.
So tell me, dipshit, why do such things if your interest is simply in science?
Why do I scare you so much? Why have you never definitively answered these
questions? It must be that you know that your actions are unjustifiable.
>> Now, be sure that I can take care of myself,
>
> Yes, you can perfectly take care of your personal
> self-respecting self ;-)
You're a bitter, pathetic, old fool, and continue to prove it with most every
post.
AllYou!
"Joe Fischer" <efis...@1g1ou.com> wrote in message
news:7uoft1h61pkfrqapb...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
>>Well, when I first came to this forum, I came for a better understanding of
>>the
>>subject matter. In doing so, I quickly found that I was expected to accept
>>answers given and not challenge them. That's when that attacks got personal.
>
> If you want a better understanding, read a textbook,
> and/or read popular expositions like "Was Einstein Right"
> by Will (I think) and "An Old Man's Toy" by Anthony Zee.
>
>>So I found other ways to amuse myself for quite a while, but when I returned
>>and
>>began to engage others here, one of the *regulars* made it a point to respond
>>to
>>seek me out and interject himself into my conversations by calling me a
>>*crackpot* and advising others not to waste their time with me.
>
> There are regulars here that think a casual study gives
> them the knowledge to evaluate, and the subject is so complex
> (except for the aggravating SR challenges) that no amount
> of casual study will make an expert.
So what? Let them flail about if you must. And if, purely by accident, they
stumble upon a subject worthy of reply, then do so. Otherwise, let them alone.
The thing you and some others here don't get is that this is a PUBLIC,
unmoderated NG. It's for the general public, and not just the so-called
experts. If the experts wanted a forum just for themselves, there are plenty of
places to get it. But what you and your ilk want is a place to show off for the
general public, while attacking those who have the temerity to challenge
conventional wisdom. You can't justifiably have it both ways, yet you insist on
doing so.
That's pathetic.
>>In fact, after making a post here after taking another short pause from
>>posting
>>here, one here even stalked me to other NGs to smear me there! Now if that's
>>not an attempt at intimidating me from posting here, what is?
>
> Try writing good original articles and clearly identify
> the speculative parts. Then if the evaluators object, just
> ignore them.
> Some people want to discuss physics, some want
> to teach physics, and others just get their jollys dumping
> on others.
And the latter is pathetic.
>>Since then, it's been much more of the same. One regular has a web site
>>dedicated to immortal fumbles, and others engage in similar tactics.
>
> Are you listed? I think that site reflects a humorous
> flavor for the most part if the fumbler is usually rational and
> just made a silly mistake.
> But so many of the real nutcases make such comical
> errors, it gets them on the list.
Try as you might, justification still eludes you. The whole point of the list
is to intimidate and ridicule, and no matter how you dress it up, that's what it
is.
>>Now, be sure that I can take care of myself, and I certainly don't mind if an
>>idea I submit, or a challenge, or even a question is thoroughly trashed.
>
> Many here are not qualified to evaluate, are you
> qualified to submit an idea?
In a public NG, EVERYONE is qualified to submit an idea.
> While physics is not as
> advanced in maturity as chemistry (in my opinion), it
> is very advanced, and a rational idea must be good
> physics.
And who are you to decide this as the standard for a public NG? Who are you to
decide what's rational? Who are you to decide what *good physics* is? And who
are you to decide that members of the public who don't meet these criteria
shouldn't comment in a PUBLIC forum?
I go to the town square which is to be enjoyed by everyone, and I claim that
time isn't physical. Someone walks by, takes issue with that comment, and
begins to debate me. Are you saying that it's justifiable to slander me to the
person who engages me in a debate? Are you saying that it's ethically
acceptable to attempt to convince that person not to talk to me because I'm not
qualified to make the statement I did? Are you saying that if on the next day,
I'm speaking to someone about football, that because of what I said about time,
it's justifiable to slander me on that occasion as well?
Certainly, because it's a public forum, you can also make whatever comments you
wish about what I've said. You can even give your opinion about my
qualifications. But to tell others who wish to engage me that I'm not serious
in my beliefs and that I'm just trying to be argumentative, and to stalk me no
matter what other conversations in which I may engage with others, even if it's
not at all related to science, for the simple purpose of stifling me is not
morally or ethically justifiable.
> Discussing an idea is completely different from
> posting a hypothesis that the idea is valid.
So what?
>>However, what's the point is seeking someone out to advise others not to have
>>dialog with them? What's the point of the web site? What's the point of
>>attacking others on a personal level?
>
> Don't worry about the web site, if you have one listing
> on it take it in fun and laugh with others about it.
> I may be on it, but I haven't seen any of my listings,
> and I am the most absurd of all posters.
You just don't get it.
PD
That depends. Science *as a process* is fairly well established,
indepedent of the content. That's the reason why the scientific method
is taught pretty much the same way to students of biology, physics,
chemistry, cognitive psychology, environmental science, and so on.
I agree that there is ample room for discussion on the *content* of
physics, expect on matters of observational fact.
I disagree that there is ample room for discussion on the effectiveness
of *how* we do science.
Most of the fur that flies around here have to do with "challenges to
conventional wisdom" that have misfired into erroneous claims about
either matters of observational fact or matters of how science should
be done. In such cases, the fur rightfully flies, even in a public
forum. One does not have to be a content expert in science to have due
respect for the process.
PD
AllYou!
Funny you'd say that in a forum dedicated to the pursuit of the specific part of
science that deals with the notion that no observer can claim any priory over
any other observer. IOW, there is no reality, no one truth, and therefore, no
single factual observation.
> I disagree that there is ample room for discussion on the effectiveness
> of *how* we do science.
Even to the point of slandering those who disagree with you?
> Most of the fur that flies around here have to do with "challenges to
> conventional wisdom" that have misfired into erroneous claims about
> either matters of observational fact or matters of how science should
> be done. In such cases, the fur rightfully flies, even in a public
> forum. One does not have to be a content expert in science to have due
> respect for the process.
You forget that this is a PUBLIC forum. Interesting that you didn't want to
touch the following:
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:U9-dnTdn5afrT0Xe...@conversent.net...
Ah, you call your fabricating a quote of mine, a dishonesty of mine :-)
That deserves another entry - don't you think?
Here we go:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AllYours.html
And, "stalking" you say?
If you don't like being "stalked", what's all this then?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e1cbca757f6fedb
You posted this yesterday on this same thread and you changed
the subject to "DVM bites again!" :-)
As far as I can tell, LOL means that you are having great fun.
If that is indeed the case, why are you complaining? Can't you
decide?
If it is not the case, wouldn't you agree that this is another
instance of dishonesty? Or do you prefer to call it undecidedness?
Can I help you decide?
Apart from that, you see, unlike you, I don't have to fabricate
another person's quotes, and when *I* quote someone, I always
include the pointer to the archives and the context.
See the difference?
Now, feel free to give us another complaint with another
self-respecting Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaap and another LOL and
another hook :-)
Dirk Vdm
PD
I believe you have seriously misconstrued what relativity says.
Relativity says that what is important (the laws of physics) are
*common* to all observers. It insists that they will *all* observe the
same behavior in this sense. It also says that there will be some
quantities that must remain *common* to all observers (for example, the
interval and invariant mass). However, it also says that those
quantities do *not* include some that we had previously assumed should
be common to all observers (such as length and time). It is therefore a
false generalization to say that relativity says there is *no* reality,
*no* one truth, *no* single factual observation. Instead, it refines
what belongs in *the* reality, *the* truth, and *the* single factual
observations.
>
> > I disagree that there is ample room for discussion on the effectiveness
> > of *how* we do science.
>
> Even to the point of slandering those who disagree with you?
>
No, not to the point of slander, imho.
>
> > Most of the fur that flies around here have to do with "challenges to
> > conventional wisdom" that have misfired into erroneous claims about
> > either matters of observational fact or matters of how science should
> > be done. In such cases, the fur rightfully flies, even in a public
> > forum. One does not have to be a content expert in science to have due
> > respect for the process.
>
> You forget that this is a PUBLIC forum. Interesting that you didn't want to
> touch the following:
>
> I go to the town square which is to be enjoyed by everyone, and I claim that
> time isn't physical. Someone walks by, takes issue with that comment, and
> begins to debate me. Are you saying that it's justifiable to slander me to the
> person who engages me in a debate?
No.
> Are you saying that it's ethically
> acceptable to attempt to convince that person not to talk to me because I'm not
> qualified to make the statement I did?
No, but it is *certainly* acceptable to indicate that you have not done
adequate homework and research on factual matters before making those
assertions. If you entered a courtroom (another public forum) and made
assertions that were contrary to established facts, then you would
certainly be called to the carpet for that, and in a very public way.
It is *also* acceptable in that criticism to suggest that you do the
proper homework and research the factual matters before reopening your
mouth on the matter.
> Are you saying that if on the next day,
> I'm speaking to someone about football, that because of what I said about time,
> it's justifiable to slander me on that occasion as well?
>
> Certainly, because it's a public forum, you can also make whatever comments you
> wish about what I've said. You can even give your opinion about my
> qualifications. But to tell others who wish to engage me that I'm not serious
> in my beliefs and that I'm just trying to be argumentative, and to stalk me no
> matter what other conversations in which I may engage with others, even if it's
> not at all related to science, for the simple purpose of stifling me is not
> morally or ethically justifiable.
It's my opinion you're reading more motives into people's behavior than
is justified. I don't know that you can claim that someone follows you
around and responds to everything you post is trying to shut you up. It
may be that person feels that it is important to correct erroneous
statements that are made, and finds it useful to monitor someone who
makes frequently erroneous statements.
PD
AllYou!
I didn't fabricate a quote of your's.
> That deserves another entry - don't you think?
> Here we go:
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AllYours.html
>
> And, "stalking" you say?
Do you deney chasing me down in another forum to spread your scum?
> If you don't like being "stalked", what's all this then?
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e1cbca757f6fedb
> |
> | Whaaaaaaaaaaaap!
> |
> | LOL!
> |
> | You Guppies will never learn.
> |
> |
> | O
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | \ _ /
> |
>
> You posted this yesterday on this same thread and you changed
> the subject to "DVM bites again!" :-)
That's not stalking you, dipshit. I posted something to someone else, you YOU
responded with more of your crap. Well, your crap isn't worth a thing to me, so
I did that, and I'll continue to do so.
What's more, I don't attack you personally for your thoughts and ideas about
science. YOU are the one who reduced this to a personal level, and so now that
you have, I'm right there with you. YOU wanted to make this personal, so now
it's personal. Plain and simple, you're an asshole.
> As far as I can tell, LOL means that you are having great fun.
With you, I am. You're a worthless piece of shit with no life except for the
gratification you can get here by deluding yourself that you're smarter than the
averge bear. If not for that, you'd have no life. so when you feel threatened
by anyone, you get very nasty, very personal, and just plain evil. You're a
scum-bag, and not of much more value to this world than that.
> If that is indeed the case, why are you complaining? Can't you
> decide?
Sure I can, and I have. See the above, dipshit.
> If it is not the case, wouldn't you agree that this is another
> instance of dishonesty?
There was never a first one.
> Or do you prefer to call it undecidedness?
I prefer to call you a pathetic old fool.
> Can I help you decide?
Decide what?
> Apart from that, you see, unlike you, I don't have to fabricate
> another person's quotes, and when *I* quote someone, I always
> include the pointer to the archives and the context.
> See the difference?
I see that you're an asshole who can't help but attack when the only thing of
value to his life is the least bit threatened.
> Now, feel free to give us another complaint with another
> self-respecting Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaap and another LOL and
> another hook :-)
Gladly, asshole. You';re always good for a laugh when I'm trolling for fish.
C'mon, guppy, bite!
O
|
|
|
|
\ _ /
AllYou!
But in another sense, the observations of time and distance which you make of a
series of events is unique to you, and not in common with others. In that
sense, there is no one observable factual distance and time which can be said to
be more valid than another observable distance and time.
> It also says that there will be some
> quantities that must remain *common* to all observers (for example, the
> interval and invariant mass). However, it also says that those
> quantities do *not* include some that we had previously assumed should
> be common to all observers (such as length and time). It is therefore a
> false generalization to say that relativity says there is *no* reality,
> *no* one truth, *no* single factual observation. Instead, it refines
> what belongs in *the* reality, *the* truth, and *the* single factual
> observations.
Dress it up any way you want, but for you to claim that observations are factual
to the point that there simply cannot be any dispute as to what they are is
arrogance, and to extend this arrogance to the point of justifying stalking and
silencing behavior is fanatical.
>> > I disagree that there is ample room for discussion on the effectiveness
>> > of *how* we do science.
>>
>> Even to the point of slandering those who disagree with you?
>>
>
> No, not to the point of slander, imho.
And that's what's been going on here.
>> > Most of the fur that flies around here have to do with "challenges to
>> > conventional wisdom" that have misfired into erroneous claims about
>> > either matters of observational fact or matters of how science should
>> > be done. In such cases, the fur rightfully flies, even in a public
>> > forum. One does not have to be a content expert in science to have due
>> > respect for the process.
>>
>> You forget that this is a PUBLIC forum. Interesting that you didn't want to
>> touch the following:
>>
>> I go to the town square which is to be enjoyed by everyone, and I claim that
>> time isn't physical. Someone walks by, takes issue with that comment, and
>> begins to debate me. Are you saying that it's justifiable to slander me to
>> the
>> person who engages me in a debate?
>
> No.
>
>> Are you saying that it's ethically
>> acceptable to attempt to convince that person not to talk to me because I'm
>> not
>> qualified to make the statement I did?
>
> No, but it is *certainly* acceptable to indicate that you have not done
> adequate homework and research on factual matters before making those
> assertions.
I absolutely agree with this, and would have no issue if that's where it ended.
> If you entered a courtroom (another public forum)
It's not public in the sense that anyone can enter and be heard and begin there
own conversations, or freely join in others. It's a public place where public
business is conducted, but it's not a public forum for public discourse. The
discourse there is very exclusive, and very structured, and only the observation
of the proceedings is public. A public NG is not simply observable to the
public, it's there to be used by the public.
> and made
> assertions that were contrary to established facts, then you would
> certainly be called to the carpet for that, and in a very public way.
See the above. A court room is not analogous to this situation. This NG does
not exist merely for me to observed, or to wait to be called so that I may
respond to very limited questions.
> It is *also* acceptable in that criticism to suggest that you do the
> proper homework and research the factual matters before reopening your
> mouth on the matter.
It certainly is, and that's not my complaint.
>> Are you saying that if on the next day,
>> I'm speaking to someone about football, that because of what I said about
>> time,
>> it's justifiable to slander me on that occasion as well?
>>
>> Certainly, because it's a public forum, you can also make whatever comments
>> you
>> wish about what I've said. You can even give your opinion about my
>> qualifications. But to tell others who wish to engage me that I'm not
>> serious
>> in my beliefs and that I'm just trying to be argumentative, and to stalk me
>> no
>> matter what other conversations in which I may engage with others, even if
>> it's
>> not at all related to science, for the simple purpose of stifling me is not
>> morally or ethically justifiable.
>
> It's my opinion you're reading more motives into people's behavior than
> is justified. I don't know that you can claim that someone follows you
> around and responds to everything you post is trying to shut you up. It
> may be that person feels that it is important to correct erroneous
> statements that are made, and finds it useful to monitor someone who
> makes frequently erroneous statements.
When they get very personal in their criticisms, and they follow me around from
conversation to conversation for the sole purpose of spreading their personal
venom, and they even pursue me to other NGs for that purpose, then it's clear
that they're trying to make my ability to freely converse with others difficult
if not impossible.
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:XsOdnR8e0vQ5ZEXe...@conversent.net...
I wrote this:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/35fdc26f709ef599
then you replied this:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/60e5c90cb1f12162
and so you got this:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cowardice.html
whether you LOL or whine about it :-)
>
> > That deserves another entry - don't you think?
> > Here we go:
> > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AllYours.html
> >
> > And, "stalking" you say?
>
> Do you deney chasing me down in another forum to spread your scum?
I'd call that "teasing" you, since you obviously love it:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e1cbca757f6fedb
>
>
> > If you don't like being "stalked", what's all this then?
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e1cbca757f6fedb
> > |
> > | Whaaaaaaaaaaaap!
> > |
> > | LOL!
> > |
> > | You Guppies will never learn.
> > |
> > |
> > | O
> > | |
> > | |
> > | |
> > | |
> > | \ _ /
> > |
> >
> > You posted this yesterday on this same thread and you changed
> > the subject to "DVM bites again!" :-)
>
> That's not stalking you, dipshit.
Of course it isn't stalking.
I never said it was stalking.
I said that this proves that you like it.
Whose the dipshit here?
I think you are getting too emotional here :-)
> I posted something to someone else, you YOU
> responded with more of your crap. Well, your crap isn't worth a thing to me, so
> I did that, and I'll continue to do so.
>
> What's more, I don't attack you personally for your thoughts and ideas about
> science. YOU are the one who reduced this to a personal level,
What personal level?
Do you think that I look at a coward who calls itself "Allyou!"
as a person?
> and so now that
> you have, I'm right there with you. YOU wanted to make this personal, so now
> it's personal. Plain and simple, you're an asshole.
Again, you take this far too seriously.
Try to control your emotions :-)
>
>
>
> > As far as I can tell, LOL means that you are having great fun.
>
> With you, I am.
Okay, so I can nicely continue then. Nice to know.
> You're a worthless piece of shit with no life except for the
> gratification you can get here by deluding yourself that you're smarter than the
> averge bear. If not for that, you'd have no life. so when you feel threatened
> by anyone, you get very nasty, very personal, and just plain evil. You're a
> scum-bag, and not of much more value to this world than that.
>
> > If that is indeed the case, why are you complaining? Can't you
> > decide?
>
> Sure I can, and I have. See the above, dipshit.
>
>
> > If it is not the case, wouldn't you agree that this is another
> > instance of dishonesty?
>
> There was never a first one.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cowardice.html
>
>
> > Or do you prefer to call it undecidedness?
>
> I prefer to call you a pathetic old fool.
>
>
> > Can I help you decide?
>
> Decide what?
When I just asked "Can't you decide?", you answered:
"Sure I can, and I have. See the above, dipshit."
And now you ask "Decide what?".
Short memory?
You can always try your own advice and "see the above" :-)
>
> > Apart from that, you see, unlike you, I don't have to fabricate
> > another person's quotes, and when *I* quote someone, I always
> > include the pointer to the archives and the context.
> > See the difference?
>
> I see that you're an asshole who can't help but attack when the only thing of
> value to his life is the least bit threatened.
hm, try to avoid projection - it looks silly.
>
>
> > Now, feel free to give us another complaint with another
> > self-respecting Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaap and another LOL and
> > another hook :-)
>
> Gladly, asshole. You';re always good for a laugh when I'm trolling for fish.
> C'mon, guppy, bite!
>
>
> O
> |
> |
> |
> |
> \ _ /
>
Yes, that's the spirit :-)
Dirk Vdm
AllYou!
And once again, your posts here confirm that I did not misquote you.
But even if in your delusions you believe that I did, that's all you've
got? A misquote back in 2004? You took this and made it very personal
much. much before that, and you kept it up, especially when you even
went to the lengths of seeking me out in another NG, and spreading your
drivel there.
As I said......YOU made this personal long before I even thought of
doing so, and instead of ever letting it go, instead of simply putting
the knives down, you instead ratcheted up the tenor and frequency of
your attacks.
>
>
>>
>> > That deserves another entry - don't you think?
>> > Here we go:
>> >
>> > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AllYours.html
>> >
>> > And, "stalking" you say?
>>
>> Do you deney chasing me down in another forum to spread your scum?
>
> I'd call that "teasing" you, since you obviously love it:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e1cbca757f6fedb
Of course that's what you'd call it. You'd define it any way you could
to excuse your despicable behavior. Well, if you're so anxious to prove
you're not the despicable character that I know you to be, then just put
the knives down and let it go. Criticize what I post for what I post,
but if you do, then do so to me. Stay away from personal attacks, and
stop trying to tell others that they should not engage me in dialogue.
There's simply no justification for that kind of behavior. NONE.
>>
>>
>> > If you don't like being "stalked", what's all this then?
>> >
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e1cbca757f6fedb
>> > |
>> > | Whaaaaaaaaaaaap!
>> > |
>> > | LOL!
>> > |
>> > | You Guppies will never learn.
>> > |
>> > |
>> > | O
>> > | |
>> > | |
>> > | |
>> > | |
>> > | \ _ /
>> > |
>> >
>> > You posted this yesterday on this same thread and you changed
>> > the subject to "DVM bites again!" :-)
>>
>> That's not stalking you, dipshit.
>
> Of course it isn't stalking.
> I never said it was stalking.
But that's what YOU do.
> I said that this proves that you like it.
It proves that I like showing you to be the idiot you are.
> Whose the dipshit here?
Clearly, it's you.
> I think you are getting too emotional here :-)
That's a laugh coming from you who can't control himself and finds the
need to launch personal attacks and tries to stifle free and open
discussion among others. Face it, not matter how hard you try to claim
that you're not pissed or *emotional*, the clear truth is that the
emotion you show is fear. This is your whole world, after all, and your
greatest fear is that anyone could put the slightest chink in your
armor. It's what motivates your hate and bitterness. It's the abject
fear of being shown to be the slightest bit wrong.
In fact, it's more pathetic than that. Not only can't you stand the
thought of being wrong, you can't even stand the thought of not having a
good answer in the first place.
>> I posted something to someone else, you YOU
>> responded with more of your crap. Well, your crap isn't worth a
>> thing to me, so
>> I did that, and I'll continue to do so.
>>
>> What's more, I don't attack you personally for your thoughts and
>> ideas about
>> science. YOU are the one who reduced this to a personal level,
>
> What personal level?
I've already explained that above. I left here for a while, and when I
came back and began a dialogue with some one else, you entered the fray
in a sad attempt to get them to end discussion with me by smearing me.
That's a personal level.
> Do you think that I look at a coward who calls itself "Allyou!"
> as a person?
More ridiculous justification for your actions. You know I'm right, and
you know what you do here is indefensible, and so now you're grasping at
straws. So if I'm not a person, why do you claim to *tease* me? Be
careful, now, your whole argument is starting to crumble for everyone to
see. Do you feel the fear now? The anger? The bitterness? Are you
pounding your keyboard just a little bit harder? Is your chin starting
to quiver? Be very careful, because you're digging yourself in much
deeper now.
>> and so now that
>> you have, I'm right there with you. YOU wanted to make this
>> personal, so now
>> it's personal. Plain and simple, you're an asshole.
>
> Again, you take this far too seriously.
> Try to control your emotions :-)
My assessment of you as being an asshole is completely unemotional.
It's a rational and inevitable conclusion.
>> > As far as I can tell, LOL means that you are having great fun.
>>
>> With you, I am.
>
> Okay, so I can nicely continue then. Nice to know.
>
>> You're a worthless piece of shit with no life except for the
>> gratification you can get here by deluding yourself that you're
>> smarter than the
>> averge bear. If not for that, you'd have no life. so when you feel
>> threatened
>> by anyone, you get very nasty, very personal, and just plain evil.
>> You're a
>> scum-bag, and not of much more value to this world than that.
>>
>> > If that is indeed the case, why are you complaining? Can't you
>> > decide?
>>
>> Sure I can, and I have. See the above, dipshit.
>>
>>
>> > If it is not the case, wouldn't you agree that this is another
>> > instance of dishonesty?
>>
>> There was never a first one.
>
>
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cowardice.html
There never was a first one.
>> > Or do you prefer to call it undecidedness?
>>
>> I prefer to call you a pathetic old fool.
>>
>>
>> > Can I help you decide?
>>
>> Decide what?
>
> When I just asked "Can't you decide?", you answered:
> "Sure I can, and I have. See the above, dipshit."
> And now you ask "Decide what?".
> Short memory?
> You can always try your own advice and "see the above" :-)
I have decided. Just look above.
>> > Apart from that, you see, unlike you, I don't have to fabricate
>> > another person's quotes, and when *I* quote someone, I always
>> > include the pointer to the archives and the context.
>> > See the difference?
>>
>> I see that you're an asshole who can't help but attack when the only
>> thing of
>> value to his life is the least bit threatened.
>
> hm, try to avoid projection - it looks silly.
It makes you look silly.
>> > Now, feel free to give us another complaint with another
>> > self-respecting Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaap and another LOL and
>> > another hook :-)
>>
>> Gladly, asshole. You';re always good for a laugh when I'm trolling
>> for fish.
>> C'mon, guppy, bite!
>>
>>
>> O
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> \ _ /
>>
>
> Yes, that's the spirit :-)
I knew you'd bite!
O
|
|
|
|
\ _ /
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:Z6adnT0jYrtsl0Te...@conversent.net...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> wrote in message news:qa7Cf.211690$AF5.6...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > news:XsOdnR8e0vQ5ZEXe...@conversent.net...
[snip]
> >> I didn't fabricate a quote of your's.
> >
> > I wrote this:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/35fdc26f709ef599
> > then you replied this:
> > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/60e5c90cb1f12162
> > and so you got this:
> > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cowardice.html
> > whether you LOL or whine about it :-)
>
>
> And once again, your posts here confirm that I did not misquote you.
They can hardly show more or less than what they show,
and that is not my fault, is it? :-)
Dirk Vdm
PD
Quite right. That's precisely the point.
However, this does not mean that laws of physics that make use of time
and space are similarly affected, and this is a *crucial* distinction.
Moreover, there is an entirely predictable relationship between the
time and space values that different observers will measure, and this
is also *crucial* information. These predictable relationships become
the facts that are pertinent to science.
>
> > It also says that there will be some
> > quantities that must remain *common* to all observers (for example, the
> > interval and invariant mass). However, it also says that those
> > quantities do *not* include some that we had previously assumed should
> > be common to all observers (such as length and time). It is therefore a
> > false generalization to say that relativity says there is *no* reality,
> > *no* one truth, *no* single factual observation. Instead, it refines
> > what belongs in *the* reality, *the* truth, and *the* single factual
> > observations.
>
> Dress it up any way you want, but for you to claim that observations are factual
> to the point that there simply cannot be any dispute as to what they are is
> arrogance,
I don't agree. This is also part of the scientific process. A single
measurement (observation of fact) does not generally warrant scientific
adoption. However, independent verification through a complementary
observation method then adds an element of sturdiness to the
observation. This sturdiness is nature exhibiting the way it works,
predictably. Arrogance doesn't enter into it; if anything, scientists
are suspicious of their own observations until they have the benefit of
*independent*, *disinteterested* corroboration.
> and to extend this arrogance to the point of justifying stalking and
> silencing behavior is fanatical.
>
>
> >> > I disagree that there is ample room for discussion on the effectiveness
> >> > of *how* we do science.
> >>
> >> Even to the point of slandering those who disagree with you?
> >>
> >
> > No, not to the point of slander, imho.
>
> And that's what's been going on here.
By everyone? Or are you generalizing? Or are you blaming the group for
the actions of a few?
OK, a public hearing, then, at a town hall meeting. Same rules apply.
Moderators are only needed there to prevent one from shouting over
another -- something that can't really happen here.
I don't know who "they" are to whom you refer, nor do I want to know. I
do think that if you have a particular issue with a particular
participant in the group, that airing that complaint to the group at
large is not particularly constructive. It's sort of like announcing
aloud in a 3rd-grade classroom, "Tommy hit me!" There are certain
guidelines for netiquette that pertain to this group -- some of what
you are complaining about is outside the scope of those guidelines.
PD
AllYou!
>
> "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> news:Z6adnT0jYrtsl0Te...@conversent.net...
>>
>> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
>> wrote in message
>> news:qa7Cf.211690$AF5.6...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>> >
>> > "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
>> > news:XsOdnR8e0vQ5ZEXe...@conversent.net...
>
> [snip]
Of course you did. The truth hutrs you too much.
>> >> I didn't fabricate a quote of your's.
>> >
>> > I wrote this:
>> >
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/35fdc26f709ef599
>> > then you replied this:
>> >
>> > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/60e5c90cb1f12162
>> > and so you got this:
>> >
>> > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cowardice.html
>> > whether you LOL or whine about it :-)
>>
>>
>> And once again, your posts here confirm that I did not misquote you.
>
> They can hardly show more or less than what they show,
> and that is not my fault, is it? :-)
What this last post of your's shows is that you know that I'm right, and
that YOU were the one to make this personal, that's there's no
justification for trying to silence others in a public NG, and that
you're the one that's been perpetuating this aberrant behavior of your's
all along.
This series of exchanges proves my point, which is why you had to snip
everything except for a link to a post made almost two years ago, and
it's thin evidence of your claims at that.
So flame on, asshole. You just proved my point for me.
O
|
|
|
|
\ _ /
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:nbGdnZicZvRjh0Te...@conversent.net...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> wrote in message news:p48Cf.211782$sR5.7...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > news:Z6adnT0jYrtsl0Te...@conversent.net...
> >>
> >> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> >> wrote in message
> >> news:qa7Cf.211690$AF5.6...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >> >
> >> > "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:XsOdnR8e0vQ5ZEXe...@conversent.net...
> >
> > [snip]
>
> Of course you did. The truth hutrs you too much.
hutr hutr hutr
>
>
> >> >> I didn't fabricate a quote of your's.
> >> >
> >> > I wrote this:
> >> >
> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/35fdc26f709ef599
> >> > then you replied this:
> >> >
> >> > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/60e5c90cb1f12162
> >> > and so you got this:
> >> >
> >> > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cowardice.html
> >> > whether you LOL or whine about it :-)
> >>
> >>
> >> And once again, your posts here confirm that I did not misquote you.
> >
> > They can hardly show more or less than what they show,
> > and that is not my fault, is it? :-)
>
>
> What this last post of your's shows is that you know that I'm right, and
> that YOU were the one to make this personal, that's there's no
> justification for trying to silence others in a public NG,
Hm, "silencing", does that include my and your attempts at redirecting
those who we think are morons and village idiots to more appropriate
newsgroups?
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=allyou%21+wrote&as_ugroup=alt.morons
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=allyou%21+wrote&as_ugroup=alt.local.village.idiot
Dirk Vdm
AllYou!
Be that as it may, it demonstrates that no single observer can claim to
have observed a fact which is exclusive to the facts of other observers.
Each observer observes their own set of facts, and so to claim that
matters of observable facts are not worthy of discussion, as I said,
interesting. How can we come to the conclusion that different
observations are equally valid if we don't discuss the observations?
> Moreover, there is an entirely predictable relationship between the
> time and space values that different observers will measure, and this
> is also *crucial* information. These predictable relationships become
> the facts that are pertinent to science.
And we only arrived at that conclusion by discussing our various
observations.
I'm not blaming *the group*.
"Those who engage in such practices obviously believe that science
is fragile, or they have no confidence in the extent of their own
knowledge of
science.
Only those who fear freedom of expression attempt to stifle it. "
And
"But the tactics of DVM & Bilge and some others here goes much further
than that,
and that's the complaint."
I haven't generalized at all.
Exactly, which is why moderators aren't required at all. Even a town
hall meeting has a specific purpose and a specific agenda. I stand by
my analogy of a town square. Usenet is a virtual town square.
Certainly there are rules of etiquette to be followed, and I did just
that until I was attacked. I didn't come to a physics NG to discuss
football. I came here to learn, and to challenge if I thought the info
I was receiving didn't make sense to me. Again, I have no quarrels if
by challenging, or proposing my own theories, they were summarily
dismissed or criticized. But I've already listed how the reactions of
some go far beyond that, and that's my complaint.
I didn't begin this thread, but simply commented on the subject matter.
But more than that, I do think that it's helpful to point out aberrant
behavior once in a while in the same way that others here will point to
certain netiquette. No difference.
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:yoednc2FEti...@conversent.net...
>
> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138299397....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > AllYou! wrote:
> >> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1138291822.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > AllYou! wrote:
[snip]
> >> >> Even to the point of slandering those who disagree with you?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > No, not to the point of slander, imho.
> >>
> >> And that's what's been going on here.
> >
> > By everyone? Or are you generalizing? Or are you blaming the group for
> > the actions of a few?
>
> I'm not blaming *the group*.
>
> "Those who engage in such practices obviously believe that science
> is fragile, or they have no confidence in the extent of their own
> knowledge of
> science.
>
> Only those who fear freedom of expression attempt to stifle it. "
>
> And
>
> "But the tactics of DVM & Bilge and some others here goes much further
> than that,
> and that's the complaint."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/508f271ea926a73d
| > Now, feel free to give us another complaint with another
| > self-respecting Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaap and another LOL and
| > another hook :-)
|
| Gladly, asshole. You';re always good for a laugh when I'm trolling for fish.
| C'mon, guppy, bite!
|
|
| O
| |
| |
| |
| |
| \ _ /
|
Complaining for receiving what you ask for is silly :-)
Dirk Vdm
PD
AllYou! wrote:
[snip]
Correct.
> Each observer observes their own set of facts, and so to claim that
> matters of observable facts are not worthy of discussion, as I said,
> interesting. How can we come to the conclusion that different
> observations are equally valid if we don't discuss the observations?
We can't. Relativity is a study of the relationships between those
observations, what will be different and what will be common, and how
the different ones are connected.
>
>
> > Moreover, there is an entirely predictable relationship between the
> > time and space values that different observers will measure, and this
> > is also *crucial* information. These predictable relationships become
> > the facts that are pertinent to science.
>
> And we only arrived at that conclusion by discussing our various
> observations.
Yes.
[rest of stuff snipped that is not physics and not, apparently,
pertinent to me]
PD
AllYou!
any justification for your attempts to silence me by attempting to smear
to others with whom I'm having a dialog, or by hounding me even in other
NGs, then you'd have made that justification.
But you know that you took this personal first. Even your attempt to
show that I've redirected replies from the likes of you is pretty funny
considering that in this very conversation between us, you're the one
who made that attempt first.
No matter how much you try, you can't hide from the fact that your
behavior here is unjustifiably boorish and even unethical.
You're a bitter, bitter man. Old, pathetic, and of no value to anyone.
Bite, guppy, bite!
O
|
|
|
|
\ _ /
AllYou!
You're the one who made this personal, and you're the one who's
continued to propagate this nonsense for years. You know it, and you
can't run from it no matter how hard you try. Let it go, Dirk, and
it'll be done. That's all that's required here. But you're too small a
person, too bitter, and too afraid to do so. The proof of that will
most assuredly follow.
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:a-WdncRJ8vx7uUTe...@conversent.net...
> Try as you might, you made this personal, and so now it is.
"Allyou!" is not a person. It is a string. I have made it stringy.
You seem to be the one who has made it personal, don't you? :-)
Dirk Vdm
AllYou!
That doesn't seem to square with your statement:
"I agree that there is ample room for discussion on the *content* of
physics, expect on matters of observational fact."
That begs the question why you'd challenge me on the issue in the first
place.
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:-v2dnYX71fumu0Te...@conversent.net...
>
> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138303474.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> > [rest of stuff snipped that is not physics and not, apparently,
> > pertinent to me]
>
> That begs the question why you'd challenge me on the issue in the first
> place.
This begs the question what on Earth makes you think that
people "challenge" you.
How a normal "person" can feel challenged by a remark
like this escapes me:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3dbb0ed237234161
But then again, I don't suffer from paranoia or from
self-respect, do I? :-)
Dirk Vdm
AllYou!
No, but please bite again, Guppy. I enjoy stringing you along.
O
|
|
|
|
\ _ /
AllYou!
You make this too easy. :-)
O
|
|
|
|
\ _ /