Recommendations for effective online scientific discussion
Juan R.
This set of recommendations was first prepared after noticing some nasty
behaviors on the USENET. Initially, I embraced the usual recommendation
to ignore trolls, crackpots, liars, flamers, and other nasty posters.
This worked for most of cases. For example, after postings from certain
nasty posters were ignored several times, the posters stopped from
replying more.
However, this recommendation did not work for the most nasty individuals
[*] and this has obligated me to rethink the guidelines, incorporating
new tactics for beating that people.
I had been ignoring most accusations, nonsenses, and lies from certain
poster in non-moderated newsgroups but then he followed me to two
moderated newsgroup and started again.
Also there was some recent discussion in moderated newsgroup
sci.physics.foundations about moderation policies, just after a group of
people openly protested to the moderator board about the annoying
messages that passed moderation. This chapter finished after one of the
moderators warned in public to the nasty poster.
Since his interest in that moderated newsgroup has diminished and
actually he is not posting more, returning to moderated newsgroups where
he posts dozens of nasty messages (insults, lies, ad hominem...) each day.
After this episode was analyzed I have also included recommendations for
moderated newsgroups. I have done several experiments in different
newsgroups, forcing limiting behaviors, recollecting the data, and
preparing the guidelines.
In several occasions I have publicly said I was recollecting information
for the guidelines and warned nasty posters about their behavior. For
example the day 12 I wrote
> I repeat again, are you aware that this thread and your messages will be
> cited in a new version of USENET guidelines?
And the reply was
"Why should I care? Nobody but you cares about your guidelines."
I have also received some feedback from users of moderated newsgroups, I
wait more feedback from moderators for this part.
Another defect of the original recommendation to ignore crackpots was
they feel freedom to post anything nonsensical they want. This was
irrelevant for veteran readers, of course, most of whom already kill-
filled the crackpots but was a source of continuous confusion for novice
readers.
For example, recently I wrote the standard Hamiltonian of special
relativity and one crackpot replied
"No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/
c^2 ]."
and from here followed a nasty discussion with more crackpots adding more
mistakes, noise, and insults. For example, another crackpot picked over
the above wrong Lagrangian and wrote
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html
Everyone who studied a minimum of special relativity and mechanics
detected the mistakes they were doing, but there was case of one novice
(no physicists are usual on newsgroups) who did not and supported in
public to the crackpot who wrote "H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2 ]".
I think it is our responsibility do not ignore those notorious mistakes
and warn novice readers always was possible. That is my current view with
further recommendations to notice the mistakes without being caught in
the noise generated by crackpots as those.
The guidelines are accessible on
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
and comments are welcomed. I thanks Murray Arnow and Peter M. Brown for
their reading of the guidelines and useful suggestions.
NOTE
[*] There is a documented case of a clearly perturbed individual who has
tried for close a year to falsify the Groups ratings about posters adding
hundred of negative stars and simulating the ratings of a hundred of
different readers. He achieved this by exploiting a well-known bug in the
Groups console.
This poster was once caught by a Groups administrator, and his fake rates
eliminated from the total rate. But that did not stop him. He changed the
nick, started a new account and continues trying to falsify the archive.
This and other samples from crackpots like Eric Gisse, disorder trolls as
Dono (Karandash2), professional liars as Tom Roberts and others will be
presented, with details, dates, original messages, and links on a future
Micro-thought, "Some samples of USENET fauna", now in preparation
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org
BradGuth
How or why the hell does “Juan R. González-Álvarez” manage to
crosspost a given topic into sci.physics whereas replies to this
simply never materialize as contributed to any of this topic as having
been crossposted into this otherwise public newsgroup?
It functions as though the topic is broken, even though all other
sci.physics topics are working properly. It must be because of using
the “Followup-To: sci.physics.relativity” option that doesn’t make a
whole lot of sense if “Juan R. González-Álvarez” is trying to draw
public attention to his/her rant.
Recommendations for effective online scientific discussion
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/be956bf14b9bff00?hl=en#
Is there a good reason in this case for using the "Followup To:"
option?
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Dirk Van de moortel
pan.2008.07...@canonicalscience.com
[snip]
> This and other samples from crackpots like Eric Gisse, disorder trolls as
> Dono (Karandash2), professional liars as Tom Roberts ...
[snip]
It follows guidelines:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IFollowGuidelines.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Guidelines.html
Dirk Vdm
BradGuth
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
> pan.2008.07.22.09.23...@canonicalscience.com
>
> [snip]
>
> > This and other samples from crackpots like Eric Gisse, disorder trolls as
> > Dono (Karandash2), professional liars as Tom Roberts ...
>
> [snip]
>
> It follows guidelines:
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Guidelines.html
>
> Dirk Vdm
Proof positive that this topic author "Juan R. González-Álvarez" is
100% correct, and then some. Thanks for proving what a racist
"alt.creep" bigot you actually are.
Bryan Olson
> This set of recommendations was first prepared after noticing some nasty
> behaviors on the USENET.
You might want to start, Juan, by correcting your own bad Usenet
behavior. Do not abuse the "followup-to" header. Why did you think
your post needed to appear on five groups, but replies should go
only to sci.physics.relativity?
[...]
> In several occasions I have publicly said I was recollecting information
> for the guidelines and warned nasty posters about their behavior. For
> example the day 12 I wrote
>
>> I repeat again, are you aware that this thread and your messages will be
>> cited in a new version of USENET guidelines?
>
> And the reply was
>
> "Why should I care? Nobody but you cares about your guidelines."
That strikes me as a reasonable response.
[...]
> This and other samples from crackpots like Eric Gisse, disorder trolls as
> Dono (Karandash2), professional liars as Tom Roberts and others will be
> presented, with details, dates, original messages, and links on a future
Who do you think you are kidding, Juan? What distinguishes these
people isn't outstandingly nasty Usenet behavior; it's that they
argued with *you*. Now you have the nerve to pretend your issue
is "effective online scientific discussion". No one is fooled.
Juan, your real cause could not be more obvious.
--
--Bryan
dlzc
Restored the full cross-post list.
On Jul 22, 2:22 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> This set of recommendations was first prepared after
> noticing some nasty behaviors on the USENET.
...
> I think it is our responsibility do not ignore those
> notorious mistakes and warn novice readers always
> was possible. That is my current view with further
> recommendations to notice the mistakes without
> being caught in the noise generated by crackpots
> as those.
Sure had to cut out a lot of whining, trolling, and personal opinion
before I got to your recommendation.
Why do you trim the "Followup-To" list on a posting such as this? If
you are going to spam five groups, you should support on-topic debate
in all five groups.
David A. Smith
Juan R.
A copy of this message is also archived in sci.physics.foundations where
I wait feedback from moderators.
Juan R.
> On Jul 22, 4:22 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>> This and other samples from crackpots like Eric Gisse, disorder trolls
>> as Dono (Karandash2), professional liars as Tom Roberts and others will
>> be presented, with details, dates, original messages, and links on a
>> future Micro-thought, "Some samples of USENET fauna", now in
>> preparation
>
> Hi Juan,
>
> I don't believe it's fair to label Tom Roberts a professional liar. I do
> recall one particular occasion where Roberts got extremely absurd in his
> criticisms of my paper
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf but I took
> that as an exception and not as a general rule. Most of the time Roberts
> seems to act like a normal, intelligent, thoughtful human being.
Hi Shubee, your own experience may be not the same that for everyone else.
If you make a search in Groups with (Tom Roberts + liar or lye) it will
return many results. A causality?
The experience I have recoiled from Roberts will be documented in Micro-
thoughts.
A late case was in the thread about massless/massive photons. There I
recognized some mistakes i did. Pete acknowledge me in public about that
but Tom Roberts started one of his usual lies saying everyone I was
unable to recognize mistakes.
You have cited a page on history of relativity from mine in your
everything directory. Why don't search the bunch of nonsenses and lies
that Roberts said about that page, and how several people including me
corrected Roberts?
> As for the non-humans that appear on USENET, isn't it amazing that a
> significant percentage of them fit a single profile and behave exactly
> like Eric Gisse, Dono, Mitch Raemsch and Androcles? They are all shit-
> throwing chimpanzees with a severe personality disorder.
Juan R.
> "Shubee" <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9980a39a-710e-4956-
ac0a-528...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 22, 4:22 am, "Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> v> This and other samples from crackpots like Eric Gisse, disorder
> trolls as
>> > Dono (Karandash2), professional liars as Tom Roberts and others will
>> > be presented, with details, dates, original messages, and links on a
>> > future Micro-thought, "Some samples of USENET fauna", now in
>> > preparation
>
>> Hi Juan,
>
>> I don't believe it's fair to label Tom Roberts a professional liar.
>
>> I do recall one particular occasion where Roberts got extremely absurd
>> in his criticisms of my paper
>> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf but I took
>> that as an exception and not as a general rule. Most of the time
>> Roberts seems to act like a normal, intelligent, thoughtful human
>> being.
>
> [...]
>
> Worse, putting such labels on participants goes contrary to general
> netiquette.
> - http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html#3 .
>
> Harald
Sure, but when some author makes a lie, I recommend to notice the lie
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
instead just ignoring it, which was my previous flawed recommendation.
Edward Green
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> This set of recommendations was first prepared after noticing some nasty
> behaviors on the USENET. Initially, I embraced the usual recommendation
> to ignore trolls, crackpots, liars, flamers, and other nasty posters.
<....>
(1) Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, and don't mess
with Mr. In-between.
(2) Have a talented body of like-minded participants of critical mass.
(3) Moderation kills spontaneity. Self-discipline is more effective:
see point (1).
(4) Don't complain too much. Just seek out others who play nice, and
play.
(5) This point added to round out the talking points to an odd number
between three and seven.
Juan R.
> "Shubee" <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7c182dc0-3fb1-45ec...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 22, 7:57 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> Worse, putting such labels on participants goes contrary to general
>>> netiquette.
>>> -http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html#3.
>>
>> Harald,
>>
>> I don't consider http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html#3 to be a divinely
>> inspired document. Can you provide a scientifically valid argument to
>> justify the claim that the antics of shit-throwing chimpanzees should
>> not be denounced publicly?
>
> Haha! I know of no scientific argument for the use of politeness and
> good manners in general. Which doesn't mean that there isn't any - who
> knows, some sociological study may have been done to test its
> usefulness.
It seems to me that it was simply prepared from extrapolation of good
manners from usual life to the Internet. It may work in certain polite
circles, but in general Internet has become a hostile environment.
And I don't think that rfc was longer valid. The original version of
guidelines also recommended to ignore lies, insults /ad hominem/, but
don't worked for the more perturbed individuals, as explained in the
introduction.
The new guidelines are some class of equilibrium between politeness and
good manners at the one hand, and the beating of nasty people at the
other.
Juan R.
> On 22 Jul, 10:22, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> There is one other thing I have noticed. This is of particular relevance
> to relativity and "The Einstein Hoax". Lots of people seem to be writing
> under a pseudonym. I must say I feel this to be rather fishy.
That may be for we cannot kill-file a single nick. However, after some
time of experience most often you learn to recognize the tone of the
titles.
Notice also those messages receive little or none replies.
> http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=The+Einstein+Hoax&meta= Gets you
> to Google list
> http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-einstein-hoax1.html Heil Hitler!
> http://users.isp.com/retic/physics/index.htm Note in particular
> usergroup log
>
> The "Hoax" is thus an organized attempt at disinformation. Motives I
> will leave to you. The feeling I get is that the number of anti
> relativists is really quite small. You see they post under different
> aliases.
>
> What I feel we need is a way of getting to original ISP addresses and
> stopping them there. This is really a responsibility of Google as much
> as of moderators.
So far as I know that spam does not pass moderation in
sci.physics.research and sci.physics.foundations.
The best I can think is to label Spam somewhat as labeling lies and /ad
hominem/. E.g. replying to the spam message, deleting the whole nasty
content and changing the title to "New spam by hoax site" or something
similar.
If more people agrees on this I will update the guidelines.
Regards.
Juan R.
> Many results?
I usually ignore your posts but will reply this one.
313 hits for
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=Tom+Roberts+liar&qt_s=Search
including messages with titles
- "Tom Roberts is a LIAR!"
- "ROBERTS of LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES is a FRAUD and a LIAR"
- And variations
Also
3 hits for:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=Tom+Roberts+lye&qt_s=Search
1,120 hits for:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?qt_s=1&q=Tom+Roberts+lie
Of course, you may agree or disagree with the above messages but and this
*was* the point, there is *many* results, not just 3 or 4 as you said.
Also you did not counted those with direct accusation in their title.
Juan R.
(...)
A future micro-though will contain the funny history of your lies, /ad
hominem/ and your pathetic attempts to falsify Groups ranting and how you
were caught by administrator in public and banned and how then you
changed the nick from karandash2 to Dono to continue to lie.
The history of your persistent lie about Lagrangians will be also
documented
How you accused other from the mistakes you were doing, how you submitted
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html
how you were corrected and then changed the message and *deleted* the
previous one in Groups using your Groups account. But, fortunately, you
*cannot* delete alternative archives containing your original message
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html
Neither you can delete my Groups posts replying your nonsense
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/
msg/6db93e88919413fe?dmode=source
and still containing your original message inside.
Say crackpot, why did you delete your message in Groups?
Where is your message
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html
in the Groups archive?
The Micro-thought also will say how you were caught about this lie also
by physicist Pete and by more people who have a copy of your original
message in their off-line readers and easily checked you were lying.
And how instead recognizing your strong mistake you continue to lie about
this.
I find you are the perfect sample of dishonest perturbed crackpot troll.
And I find good to warn novice readers about the kind of dishonest
tactics you use.
Juan R.
> According to Herbert Goldstein, Classical Mechanics Second Edition, p.
> 321, the correct Lagrangian for a single particle acted on by
> conservative forces independent of velocity would be
>
> L= - mc^2 * sqrt((1-(v/c)^2)) - V
>
> where V is the potential, depending only upon position, and v is the
> speed of the particle in the Lorentz frame under consideration.
>
> Shubee
Of course Shubee, and for a free particle V = 0.
This info is already present on my 2007 blog article on
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-and-
limitations.html
but crackpots (aka chimpanzees in your terminology) Eric and Dono both
claimed last week that I was wrong and said us the free Lagrangian was
L= - mc^2 * (1-(v/c)^2)
Eric nonsensical post [#] is here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1071dfa7cde45b73
Notice it has four positive starts. I.e. either four ignorants still
think that Eric *nonsense* is right or it is simply Dono (aka Karandash2)
voting four times for his friend Eric.
Do you remember when Karandash2 voted a twenty times for his friend Eric
and administrators caught both?
Dono has *deleted* his nonsensical post in Groups. It is still accessible
in my reply here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/
msg/6db93e88919413fe?dmode=source
and also in third archives (that crackpot Dono cannot delete :-))
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html
Eric wrote many more nonsense in that thread. All was corrected. And Dono
has tried to lie attributing to others their own mistakes.
Still today, he continues negating he had wrote
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html
after several people already noticed his lie. E.g Pete did in another
thread.
[#] Notice in that single message Eric makes many more strong mistakes:
(H = L), (H < 0), H = H(v), (H(c) = 0).
Juan R.
(...)
Juan R.
> Shubee wrote on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:29:55 -0700:
>
>> According to Herbert Goldstein, Classical Mechanics Second Edition, p.
>> 321, the correct Lagrangian for a single particle acted on by
>> conservative forces independent of velocity would be
>>
>> L= - mc^2 * sqrt((1-(v/c)^2)) - V
>>
>> where V is the potential, depending only upon position, and v is the
>> speed of the particle in the Lorentz frame under consideration.
>>
>> Shubee
>
> Of course Shubee, and for a free particle V = 0.
>
> This info is already present on my 2007 blog article on
>
> http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-
and-
> limitations.html
>
> but crackpots (aka chimpanzees in your terminology) Eric and Dono both
> claimed last week that I was wrong and said us the free Lagrangian was
>
> L= - mc^2 * (1-(v/c)^2)
>
> Eric nonsensical post [#] is here
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/
msg/1071dfa7cde45b73
>
> Notice it has four positive starts.
Here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/
thread/0176557c7fcaa7f7/69ab53f4ec74f2d6?rnum=31&q=Eric+Gisse+massless
+photon&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%
2F176557c7fcaa7f7%2Fbf2afb5f23e02df4%3Ftvc%3D1%26q%3DEric%2BGisse%
2Bmassless%2Bphoton%26#doc_1071dfa7cde45b73
Juan R.
> You act so high and mighty while making claims for "effective online
> discussion". One of my first messages in the thread after you pointing
> out I used the wrong Hamiltonian was a request for you to derive the
> correct Hamiltonian - and you didn't.
You wrote the wrong Hamiltonian *and* wrong Lagrangian.
> You didn't say /shit/. In fact,
> you replied in your typical smug and smarmy manner! Yet you act all
> surprised when I then assume you are full of shit and continue along
> that path.
Anyone can see that first replies were polite and we only react in a
nasty way after several days of insults from you and Dono. Anyone can
read the whole thread to check that.
My reply to your nonsense was a concise "nonsense". And was rather polite
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8cba8ac38814e685
In your reply
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f188a6de4ec9ebc5
you already started to insult
"short memory term", "I can't decide whether the hypocracy or dishonesty
annoys me more" and so on,
and also tried to make a lye about my own blog
"Says it right there."
when my blog was saying that your Lagrangian *was wrong*
From here you continued to insult both me and Pete, negating any
correction (and we did many!) to your nonsenses.
> What about when I dropped the sqrt from the Lagrangian and you commented
> I should have divided instead of multiplied? The only person to actually
> _correct_ me was Daryl and Pete - not you.
But I already had said that your message was nonsense. And my blog, which
you had read before contains the correct Lagrangian even if you tried to
lie about that.
Still in my reply to you I wrote
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6b1bf57a5552c406
"After writing above nonsense now you wait to confound readers with your
usual unfair techniques.
What *I wrote in that blog is the relativistic Lagrangian L*, denoted by
symbol L and named (I quote from above link) the "free Lagrangian".
The Hamiltonian H is that I wrote above (1) in this newsgroup. What you
wrote was nonsensical."
If you take a look to the blog I cite you can see the correct Lagrangian.
I also noticed this in a polite reply to Dono (where he had launched two
flamming messages against me)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5926235b88d0759f
Therefore I don't know what you wait lying more about this.
> You are not interested in "effective online discussion". You are only
> interested in making yourself look important - look how quickly you
> abandoned the idiocies in your OP about massive/massless photons.
More ad hominem and more lies.
When Pete also corrected your nonsenses, you started to insult both and
wrote
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/492fd412b15f15f9
"Yea but I'm smarter than both of you. By such a wide margin it boggles
the mind"
It was clear you were only interested in making yourself look important
even if now you are also lying about that.
> You
> aren't interested in honesty or discussion - look how happy you were to
> encourage me along a path you knew was wrong. Look how happy you are to
> continue to shout from the rooftops that I fucked up.
You and Dono both *started* many flammes, ad honimen and lies about Pete
an me. We were polite until a point where we react to all your nasty
behavior. The guidelines may be of help to other readers to react better
to your nasty behavior.
Moreover, I warned you many times about your nasty behavior and many
times I asked you to stop from insult and lie. I also did several times
in that thread, where I wrote you
"I repeat again, are you aware that this thread and your messages will be
cited in a new version of USENET guidelines?"
And your reply was
"Why should I care? Nobody but you cares about your guidelines."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f780a4d65c6ea2c4
Then the question is, why are now you caring and posting in this thread?
> Instead of spending hours a day whining about one aspect or another on
> this newsgroup, why don't you go back to your blog which nobody reads?
Do you mean 'nobody' as you
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f188a6de4ec9ebc5
and Dono?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5926235b88d0759f
Juan R.
(...)
Remember dirk. You wrote:
"Even when you fail to realize that you are flatly wrong about
something, the best thing to do, is to at least think 'Oops!'.
Are you Androcles in disguise?"
--- Dirk Vdm to Dono in sci.physics.relativity Mar 2008
"You act exactly like Androcles, and that is no compliment.
Your Dono-alias is severely compromized."
--- Dirk Vdm to Dono in sci.physics.relativity Mar 2008
But then why do you add Androcles to your fumbles pages and not to Dono?
Maybe because your criterion is unfair?
Also you often add Alb... when he writes something wrong but you did not
add Eric Gisse when wrote nonsense
"No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/
c^2 ]."
or when wrote nonsense
"But since you are pitching a shitfit over it, here: v = p/m --> H = -
mc^2 [1 - p^2 / (mc)^2 ]^1/2"
Neither you did add Dono who wrote
Are not above good fumbles for your page Dirk?
Or posts are *only* fumbles when are said by someone you dislike, whereas
ignored when said by someone you like?
You don't explain this in your funny pages
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/
IFollowGuidelines.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Guidelines.html
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>> This set of recommendations was first prepared after noticing some
>> nasty behaviors on the USENET.
>
> You might want to start, Juan, by correcting your own bad Usenet
> behavior. Do not abuse the "followup-to" header. Why did you think your
> post needed to appear on five groups, but replies should go only to
> sci.physics.relativity?
It is technical issue of my newsreader I don't know how solve. If I leave
the followup in blank or add all groups then gives error 441 and don't
post.
> [...]
>> In several occasions I have publicly said I was recollecting
>> information for the guidelines and warned nasty posters about their
>> behavior. For example the day 12 I wrote
>>
>>> I repeat again, are you aware that this thread and your messages will
>>> be cited in a new version of USENET guidelines?
>>
>> And the reply was
>>
>> "Why should I care? Nobody but you cares about your guidelines."
>
> That strikes me as a reasonable response.
Exact, why would he stop from submitting more nonsense and insults after
being warned to not continue that way? Why would he stop from doing that
in moderated newsgroups where was warned by moderators to remain polite?
He preferred to abandon the moderated newsgroups to continue to lie and
insult in non-moderated ones.
> [...]
>> This and other samples from crackpots like Eric Gisse, disorder trolls
>> as Dono (Karandash2), professional liars as Tom Roberts and others will
>> be presented, with details, dates, original messages, and links on a
>> future
>
> Who do you think you are kidding, Juan? What distinguishes these people
> isn't outstandingly nasty Usenet behavior; it's that they argued with
> *you*.
I differentiate between arguments, and the mere insults, ad hominem, and
lies.
Moreover, you seem to be unaware these people has argued practically with
anyone who has participated in the groups. Indeed they are top posters of
all times.
> Now you have the nerve to pretend your issue is "effective online
> scientific discussion". No one is fooled. Juan, your real cause could
> not be more obvious.
Use the guidelines if you like them and not if you don't. It is that
simple.
Juan R.
> Moreover, you seem to be unaware these people has argued practically
> with anyone who has participated in the groups. Indeed they are top
> posters of all times.
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/about
1º) Dirk
5º) Tom
6º) Eric
Dono changed nick from Karandash2 when was banned and that may explain
why is not one of top poster of all times. Still Dono is one of top
posters this month.
Juan R.
(...)
Your nasty posts in another thread were ignored but not more David. See
below.
> Why do you trim the "Followup-To" list on a posting such as this? If
> you are going to spam five groups, you should support on-topic debate in
> all five groups.
As explained before it is a 441 error in my newsreader.
I see you are not perturbed by Eric posting nonsense, Dono trying to
falsify Groups archive and ratings or Tom promoting usual lies but you
are by technical issue about cross-posting.
All of that is fine for you. No? Indeed you replied then to me, but you
did not them.
In any case, you are detected
"Be aware that some people will argue indefinitely over a moot point. One
of their favorite tactics is to overemphasize a minor point while totally
ignoring a major issue. Avoid this trap! It fills the network with
useless noise and waste time."
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:22:02 +1200, Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote (in
> article <pan.2008.07...@canonicalscience.com>):
>
>
>> This set of recommendations was first prepared after noticing some
>> nasty behaviors on the USENET. Initially, I embraced the usual
>> recommendation to ignore trolls, crackpots, liars, flamers, and other
>> nasty posters.
>>
>> This worked for most of cases. For example, after postings from certain
>> nasty posters were ignored several times, the posters stopped from
>> replying more...
>
> Juan, this is going to happen anywhere you post because you don't have
> discussions, you make assertions.
> Anyone who disagrees with you is a
> "nasty poster".
This is blatantly false. I consider a nasty poster one who insult and/or
lie and continue to do it after being warned.
> It is your style that is the problem.
In other thread you argued against Pete now it is against me. Tomorrow
will be against other.
The problem that Eric wrote the nonsense
No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/
c^2 ].
was his ignorance not "my style" And the problem when Dono has lied about
he really wrote (and tried to falsify) was his not "my style" and when
Tom lied was his style not mine.
Go away with your partial evaluations.
Dirk Van de moortel
pan.2008.07...@canonicalscience.com
>
> (...)
>
> Remember dirk. You wrote:
>
> "Even when you fail to realize that you are flatly wrong about
> something, the best thing to do, is to at least think 'Oops!'.
> Are you Androcles in disguise?"
> --- Dirk Vdm to Dono in sci.physics.relativity Mar 2008
>
> "You act exactly like Androcles, and that is no compliment.
> Your Dono-alias is severely compromized."
> --- Dirk Vdm to Dono in sci.physics.relativity Mar 2008
>
>
> But then why do you add Androcles to your fumbles pages and not to Dono?
>
> Maybe because your criterion is unfair?
Dono just proposed my adding another one of yours.
I declined for a specific reason.
You are emotionally too involved and unstable to understand
the criteria.
Dirk Vdm
Juan R.
>> NOTE
>>
>> [*] There is a documented case of a clearly perturbed individual who
>> has tried for close a year to falsify the Groups ratings about posters
>> adding hundred of negative stars and simulating the ratings of a
>> hundred of different readers. He achieved this by exploiting a
>> well-known bug in the Groups console.
>>
>> This poster was once caught by a Groups administrator, and his fake
>> rates eliminated from the total rate. But that did not stop him. He
>> changed the nick, started a new account and continues trying to falsify
>> the archive.
>>
>> This and other samples from crackpots like Eric Gisse, disorder trolls
>> as Dono (Karandash2), professional liars as Tom Roberts and others will
>> be presented, with details, dates, original messages, and links on a
>> future Micro-thought, "Some samples of USENET fauna", now in
>> preparation
>>
> Just to see how easy it was to set up another account I have just done
> so. I notice that at one point you had one star against your posting
> with 173 users. Google seem to have now corrected this.
Yes but Dono (Karandash2 account was banned) has continued to try to
falsify ratings in Groups during a year. Without noticing that his fake
ratings vanish in the air automatically after a while.
But he will try again to add dozens or hundred of fake votes. He is a
clearly perturbed individual.
> How in the face
> of this anyone can deny that "The Einstein Hoax" etc. is not organized I
> just don't know. I am told I fantasize an on drugs etc. etc. but to me
> the evidence is quite simply overwhelming.
>
> I say this because the situation of one or two people having a "bee in
> their bonnets" is very different from what we are facing in the
> "Einstein Hoax".
What do you think about my above messages with recommendation about spam
by "Einstein hoax"? Would help?
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/
c114ab58f8f15805/28d66d74f516c916?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#28d66d74f516c916
> Rand Simberg 112 you are vectored on this reference to 111.
>
> Here is a speciman of Simbergus Dextrus horribilis. He goes on and on in
> this vein.
>
> BTW - The original posting (no 111) can in fact be answered by saying
> that private America values trained intelligence. Public America does
> not. The "Einstein Hoax" is a cover story for antigravity and the fact
> that no reputable physicist was consulted at the time. No Arabist was
> consulted over Iraq, so when Tom Potter talks about the cost of such
> things as Gravity Probe B, Iraq is relevant. I reckon that far more
> money was spent in Area 51 than was ever spent on Gravity Probes and
> Dark Matter combined.
>
> So 1 point for my nickname in the Einstein Cult index. It simply means
> "student" in Arabic. The Einstein cult should really be called the
> Public America anticult.
>
> I will keep this account. It might be useful one day if I ever get
> involved in measuring compression of different texts. I hope everyone
> will join me in utterly comdemning the threats on the life of that
> German professor I mentioned. We seem to be back in the time of Galileo.
>
>
> - Ian Parker
Juan R.
> On Jul 23, 3:51 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>> You have cited a page on history of relativity from mine in your
>> everything directory. Why don't search the bunch of nonsenses and lies
>> that Roberts said about that page, and how several people including me
>> corrected Roberts?
>
> Juan,
>
> I believe that you need to establish your own case against your enemies,
> and not ask anyone to prove your argument for you.
>
> Shubee
Hi Shubee, my point was twofold:
i)
Tom Roberts lies and /ad hominem/ are not exception but a rule he been
applying during years.
ii)
I am saying that Tom has done nonsensical claims and several bizarre
postings about the history of relativity. I simply invited you to read he
wrote and how people much better informed than him corrected.
The whole thread is
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/
d485a4eaa48f3741/d3002f3ca9ca2aec?lnk=st&q=Tom+Roberts+history+of
+relativity+bias#d3002f3ca9ca2aec
Tom Roberts false accusations and ad hominems are here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/df1f4963197d43ad
Roberts was corrected and noticed to be "plain wrong" by at least two
people. You may find useful replies as that by Harry
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/940c5ffb52e781eb
and that by DH
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d3002f3ca9ca2aec
DH offered lots of relevant info and references, which contrasted with
the usual dogmatic style of Tom Roberts.
Of course, Roberts never retracted from his unfair accusations and
mistakes...
Juan R.
> On Jul 23, 5:26 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you remember when Karandash2 voted a twenty times for his friend
>> Eric and administrators caught both?
>
> No. Do you have a link?
Some few ones when administrator caught both and lied about their nasty
behavior.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7e258350d53dea5a
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4dd841b39e0f978b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1b4d722d708431ff
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b622df514fbecf88
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a4c367f773b801ca
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/07f060b77ac0be52
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ac9bcdceb416fcfc
You also noticed Dono would be falsifying ratings in other thread and
argued would be Karandash2
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/67b13d3d9e722dfd
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/05ee614878e7d41b
Dono was caught to be the old Karandash2 here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/fee82c0d7b37d278
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/71827fe68647ca7c
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/45ec8f3cf4df0fd8
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1134132abaff1002
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/07b98bca64850e21
>> Eric wrote many more nonsense in that thread. ... And Dono has tried to
>> lie attributing to others their own mistakes.
>
>
> That sounds just like that chimpanzee.
After several days Dono is is still negating he had written
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html
Notice how Dono *has deleted* his nonsensical message in Groups, which I
replied on
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/
msg/6db93e88919413fe?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5b409010e85e0ea5
Of course, more people noticed in public Dono pathetic lying
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/32adab0a963c47c8
How can Dono believe that deleting his messages in Groups he will be able
to hide his mistakes?
Juan R.
> Some few ones when administrator caught both and lied about their nasty
> behavior.
Opps a strong typo!
Some few ones when administrator caught both and *laugh* about their nasty
behavior.
Juan R.
> I also noticed this in a polite reply to Dono (where he had launched two
> flamming messages against me)
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/
msg/5926235b88d0759f
That nasty message is from Dono.
My reply was
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/52c919604b0672ef
More nasty replies from Dono
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/91a8572f4960fb22
and more polite replies from me
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a0438f36a8d5e4d3
where also noticed both were lying about my blog but still I was polite
in noticing their lying.
But still both Dono and Eric continued to insult and lie to me, to Pete,
and to other people in that thread.
BradGuth
> On Jul 22, 2:22 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>
>
>
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> > This set of recommendations was first prepared after noticing some nasty
> > behaviors on the USENET. Initially, I embraced the usual recommendation
> > to ignore trolls, crackpots, liars, flamers, and other nasty posters.
>
> > This worked for most of cases. For example, after postings from certain
> > nasty posters were ignored several times, the posters stopped from
>
> > However, this recommendation did not work for the most nasty individuals
> > [*] and this has obligated me to rethink the guidelines, incorporating
> > new tactics for beating that people.
>
> > I had been ignoring most accusations, nonsenses, and lies from certain
> > poster in non-moderated newsgroups but then he followed me to two
> > moderated newsgroup and started again.
>
> > Also there was some recent discussion in moderated newsgroup
> > sci.physics.foundations about moderation policies, just after a group of
> > people openly protested to the moderator board about the annoying
> > messages that passed moderation. This chapter finished after one of the
> > moderators warned in public to the nasty poster.
>
> > Since his interest in that moderated newsgroup has diminished and
> > actually he is not posting more, returning to moderated newsgroups where
> > he posts dozens of nasty messages (insults, lies, ad hominem...) each day.
>
> > After this episode was analyzed I have also included recommendations for
> > moderated newsgroups. I have done several experiments in different
> > newsgroups, forcing limiting behaviors, recollecting the data, and
> > preparing the guidelines.
>
> > for the guidelines and warned nasty posters about their behavior. For
> > example the day 12 I wrote
>
> > > I repeat again, are you aware that this thread and your messages will be
> > > cited in a new version of USENET guidelines?
>
> > And the reply was
>
> > "Why should I care? Nobody but you cares about your guidelines."
>
> > wait more feedback from moderators for this part.
>
> > Another defect of the original recommendation to ignore crackpots was
> > they feel freedom to post anything nonsensical they want. This was
> > irrelevant for veteran readers, of course, most of whom already kill-
> > filled the crackpots but was a source of continuous confusion for novice
> > readers.
>
> > For example, recently I wrote the standard Hamiltonian of special
> > relativity and one crackpot replied
>
> > c^2 ]."
>
> > mistakes, noise, and insults. For example, another crackpot picked over
> > the above wrong Lagrangian and wrote
>
> >http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
> > msg00824.html
>
> > Everyone who studied a minimum of special relativity and mechanics
> > detected the mistakes they were doing, but there was case of one novice
> > (no physicists are usual on newsgroups) who did not and supported in
> > public to the crackpot who wrote "H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2 ]".
>
> > I think it is our responsibility do not ignore those notorious mistakes
> > and warn novice readers always was possible. That is my current view with
> > further recommendations to notice the mistakes without being caught in
> > the noise generated by crackpots as those.
>
> > The guidelines are accessible on
>
> >http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
>
> > and comments are welcomed. I thanks Murray Arnow and Peter M. Brown for
> > their reading of the guidelines and useful suggestions.
>
>
> > [*] There is a documented case of a clearly perturbed individual who has
> > tried for close a year to falsify the Groups ratings about posters adding
> > hundred of negative stars and simulating the ratings of a hundred of
> > different readers. He achieved this by exploiting a well-known bug in the
> > Groups console.
>
> > This poster was once caught by a Groups administrator, and his fake rates
> > eliminated from the total rate. But that did not stop him. He changed the
> > nick, started a new account and continues trying to falsify the archive.
>
> > This and other samples from crackpots like Eric Gisse, disorder trolls as
> > Dono (Karandash2), professional liars as Tom Roberts and others will be
> > presented, with details, dates, original messages, and links on a future
> > Micro-thought, "Some samples of USENET fauna", now in preparation
>
> crosspost a given topic into sci.physics whereas replies to this
> simply never materialize as contributed to any of this topic as having
> been crossposted into this otherwise public newsgroup?
>
> It functions as though the topic is broken, even though all other
> sci.physics topics are working properly. It must be because of using
> the “Followup-To: sci.physics.relativity” option that doesn’t make a
> whole lot of sense if “Juan R. González-Álvarez” is trying to draw
> public attention to his/her rant.
>
> Recommendations for effective online scientific discussionhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/be956bf1...
>
> Is there any good reason in this case for using the "Followup-To:"
> option?
>
> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Why is Juan R. González-Álvarez unaware of using "Followup-To:
alt.crackpot"?
And of others clearly opposed to changing a damn thing for the better
using "Followup-To: alt.creep, alt.morons"
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Juan R.
> On Jul 22, 4:22 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> This set of recommendations was first prepared after noticing some
>> nasty behaviors on the USENET. Initially, I embraced the usual
>> recommendation to ignore trolls, crackpots, liars, flamers, and other
>> nasty posters.
>
> It depends on how you measure efficacy of online scientific discussion.
> What is it you hope gets accomplished on a newsgroup?
>
I think it is more effective to notice lies, ad honimen, and nonsenses
but without participating in further discussion, maintaining noise to
acceptable 'minimum'.
This may be qualitatively understood as follow.
The thread about massive and massless photons started fine with several
people posting interesting stuff. E.g. Igor did the more important post
to help to understand why Hamiltonian (2) would be just (1).
But the whole thread got full of noise, once Eric, Dono and others nasty
posters participated here with their usual ad hominem lies and nonsenses.
In the past, if Eric had wrote the nonsense
"No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/
c^2 ]."
I had simply ignored because I recommended to ignore nonsense. But I
don't see now reason for which I may ignore nonsense as that of above
without warning to novices, non-physicists, and the like.
Today I would still notice how wrong Eric was, but I had not participated
in subsequent discussion and the whole thread had been rather free of
noise and nasty content, also from mine :-(
Another reason is
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
"Forget that nasty people. When you correct some of their mistakes, they
often reply by making more mistakes, which you also feel obligated to
correct. Avoid this trap also! It fills the network with useless noise in
some exponential way as has been proven recently."
After several postings for justifying his mistake about relativity Eric
wrote another nonsense
"But since you are pitching a shitfit over it, here: v = p/m --> H = -
mc^2 [1 - p^2 / (mc)^2 ]^1/2"
which contains new mistakes to be added to the large list of mistakes
Eric was doing before.
If then I had the guidelines ready and operative like now, that mistake
from Eric had never been posted, because once noticed his initial
nonsense I had not continued to correct him.
I consider to maintain noise to a minimum and enclosed being more
effective that leaving noise and mistakes to spread freely from threads.
That was my MISTAKE when I recommended to completely ignore lies, ad
hominem, and nonsense. They had the feeling they could post anything they
want because I would never reply.
If you don't like guidelines don't use. If you prefer previous version,
use previous version. If you think may be improved say me how. If you
don't care then...
[#] To say one poster who I have also corrected in the past.
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>> A late case was in the thread about massless/massive photons. There I
>> recognized some mistakes i did. Pete acknowledge me in public about
>> that but Tom Roberts started one of his usual lies saying everyone I
>> was unable to recognize mistakes.
>
> You are supposed to read what I write. The mistakes you make and do not
> acknowledge were not in that thread, the ones I was referring to are in
> the thread "Chubykalo and Vlaev's basic mistake", in which you
> repeatedly babble nonsense about "two functions R", write other nonsense
> about "quantum fields" in a paper about CLASSICAL electrodynamics, and
> don't understand or acknowledge the three different mistakes C&V made.
>
> [Discussions of their mistakes, and of yours in that
> thread belong in that thread, not this one.]
>
> While you call me a "liar", you lie about me in that thread about C&V,
> and in other threads such as this one. You even lie about YOUR OWN
> WRITINGS in that thread about C&V.
>
> Please stop writing lies about me.
My early MISTAKE was I didn't noticed your lies before and this gave you
the false impression you could lie anything you want about me and I would
not notice that to readers.
But that is not longer true. Each time you were lying I will be reporting.
As here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/18749d408a0c94e1
and here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f4832a4fdc441ba1
And once you were caught by more readers (as Pmb) in your "only by" lie
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e321b0de16a412eb
then you wrote
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6ea24482af3d9888
where you started another new lie. Now about me don't recognizing mistakes
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6ea24482af3d9888
Your words were:
(\blockquote
Unlike most people around here, and Juan R. González-Álvarez in
particular, I do admit my mistakes (when I make one), and correct them.
)
Which of course is flagrantly wrong. Anyone who has been reading me will
see I have recognized several mistakes and acknowledged corrections in
several places.
I also recognized mistakes in the above thread where you lied and
insulted me. I recognized my mistakes and other people noticed I had done
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3e9a5cb136a3a592
(\blockquote
> In the thread about photons you pointed one or two mistakes in my posts
> and I rapidly agreed on them and gave thanks to you.
I noticed that about you. Very admirable. :)
)
Now once your last lie in that thread was noticed you seem to change your
initial lie by your above
> You are supposed to read what I write. The mistakes you make and do not
> acknowledge were not in that thread, the ones I was referring to are in
> the thread "Chubykalo and Vlaev's basic mistake", in which you
But your quote was
(\blockquote
Unlike most people around here, and Juan R. González-Álvarez in
particular, I do admit my mistakes (when I make one), and correct them.
)
In the same thread Pete explains one typical straw man from you
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/edcd468416632b52
and here I explain some of the lies from you, I will be reporting in
micro-thoughts "Sample of USENET fauna",
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e1c7b71bd6c92d87
It is interesting that I corrected your lie about quantum fields two or
three times in the C&V thread. And again I corrected your lie in the
above link where I wrote once again
(\blockquote
I said *not* that their paper was about quantum fields. It is obvious
for anyone it is about classical electrodynamics. Don't lie Tom.
)
But as anyone can see, in this same thread, you again accuse me from
saying that C&V paper is about quantum fields.
How do you wait that you lies were not reported when they are so obvious?
How do you wait that I was not warning readers about your known tactics?
> Any competent person who examines the record will know who is right and
> who is wrong,
I like as you start "Any competent person..." Do you mean anyone who
agree with you will be labeled as competent and anyone who disagree will
be not?
Your errors on C&V paper were noticed in the corresponding thread, your
mistakes, misreadings and /ad hominem/ also were then.
For example *you* wrote about C&V preprint (physics/0205041v1) the next
ad hominem
(\blockquote
The fact that their 6-year old response [...]
)
dlzc
On Jul 23, 5:00 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> dlzc wrote on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:40:43 -0700:
>
> (...)
>
> Your nasty posts in another thread were ignored
> but not more David. See below.
Your opinion of my comments is your problem.
> > Why do you trim the "Followup-To" list on
> > a posting such as this? If you are going
> > to spam five groups, you should support
> > on-topic debate in all five groups.
>
> As explained before it is a 441 error in my
> newsreader.
You are specifically spamming five newsgroups. Your choice of
newsreader is not usenet's problem. If you can only respond to a
single newsgroup, then you should keep it there.
> I see you are not perturbed by Eric
> posting nonsense,
Your opinions are your problem. Eric posts less nonsense than, for
example, this "sewing circle" discussion you have started here.
> Dono trying to falsify Groups archive
Your tiny little feelings about "ratings" are not usenet's problem
either. They are not recorded outside of Google Groups, and do not
help the conversation.
> and ratings or Tom promoting usual lies
> but you are by technical issue about
> cross-posting.
Tom can be baited into trying to depend himself by various trolls,
where any sane human will accept that Tom is also human. Tom is the
most honorable person (that is still alive) that I know. You however
change your rules because your feelings get hurt. Science is an
atagonistic system. We don't respect others feelings where facts /
data / theory / application are concerned. If you place yourself
between a responder and your pet "theory", and you get shot at, whose
fault is that?
> All of that is fine for you. No? Indeed
> you replied then to me, but you did not
> them.
They rarely post off-topic, typically respond in thread, respond
directly to the OP, and do not constantly change the thread title.
You however expel the contents of your gut on any thread, about anyone
else, and change the thread title despite usenet guidelines.
> In any case, you are detected
Yeah, I've been here since Feb 2000. I'll probably be here a bit
longer.
> "Be aware that some people will argue
> indefinitely over a moot point. One of their
> favorite tactics is to overemphasize a minor
> point while totally ignoring a major issue.
> Avoid this trap! It fills the network with
> useless noise and waste time."
Good point. Can you read your own advice?
David A. Smith
Tonico
********************************************************
Why won't you guys take your increidibly stupid feuds the fuck out of
sci.math?
Thanx
Tonio
hhc...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I suppose that my suggestion would be simply to ignore obvousely troll
posts, time all followups to the the newsgroup on which you are
reading the post, and tend to ignore or refute (at your option) both
trolls and ridiculous assertions.
Something I have noticed is that most of the troll posts on
sci.physics crosspost to multiple newsgroups. This is the troll
posters method of attracting attention to himself, and his/her usually
ridiculous posts. So, if you are tempted to respond to one of these
posters, simply trim the followups to include only the newsgroup on
which you are reading the post.
Harry C.
Juan R.
> This set of recommendations was first prepared after noticing some nasty
> behaviors on the USENET. Initially, I embraced the usual recommendation
> to ignore trolls, crackpots, liars, flamers, and other nasty posters.
>
> "No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/
> c^2 ]."
>
> and from here followed a nasty discussion with more crackpots adding
> more mistakes, noise, and insults. For example, another crackpot picked
> over the above wrong Lagrangian and wrote
>
> http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
> msg00824.html
>
> Everyone who studied a minimum of special relativity and mechanics
> detected the mistakes they were doing, but there was case of one novice
> (no physicists are usual on newsgroups) who did not and supported in
> public to the crackpot who wrote "H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2 ]".
>
> I think it is our responsibility do not ignore those notorious mistakes
> and warn novice readers always was possible. That is my current view
> with further recommendations to notice the mistakes without being caught
> in the noise generated by crackpots as those.
>
> The guidelines are accessible on
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
>
> and comments are welcomed. I thanks Murray Arnow and Peter M. Brown for
> their reading of the guidelines and useful suggestions.
>
>
> NOTE
>
> [*] There is a documented case of a clearly perturbed individual who has
> tried for close a year to falsify the Groups ratings about posters
> adding hundred of negative stars and simulating the ratings of a hundred
> of different readers. He achieved this by exploiting a well-known bug in
> the Groups console.
>
> This poster was once caught by a Groups administrator, and his fake
> rates eliminated from the total rate. But that did not stop him. He
> changed the nick, started a new account and continues trying to falsify
> the archive.
>
> This and other samples from crackpots like Eric Gisse, disorder trolls
> as Dono (Karandash2), professional liars as Tom Roberts and others will
> be presented, with details, dates, original messages, and links on a
> future Micro-thought, "Some samples of USENET fauna", now in preparation
>
> canonicalscience.blogspot.com
Thanks everyone by feedback. Thanks by kindly words and thanks also by
all the hostile replies.
Latter ones (some very hostile) clearly indicated that I shoot to the
center of the target :-)
Here in thereafter lies, ad hominem, and straw man will be not longer
ignored as before but just noticed each time some troll want to break a
normal thread with usual nasty behavior. Trolls are advised to keep
out :-)
Juan R.
(\newsgroups
sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.bio.misc,sci.chem,sci.math
)
> On Jul 23, 9:43 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> PD wrote on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:53:36 -0700:
>>
>> > On Jul 22, 4:22 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> >> This set of recommendations was first prepared after noticing some
>> >> nasty behaviors on the USENET. Initially, I embraced the usual
>> >> recommendation to ignore trolls, crackpots, liars, flamers, and
>> >> other nasty posters.
>>
>> > It depends on how you measure efficacy of online scientific
>> > discussion. What is it you hope gets accomplished on a newsgroup?
>>
>> I think it is more effective to notice lies, ad honimen, and nonsenses
>> but without participating in further discussion, maintaining noise to
>> acceptable 'minimum'.
>
> That doesn't answer what I asked you.
It did. It gives a meaning to I mean by more effective discussion.
> You just gave me some examples of
> tactics you use to deal with examples of what you consider to be bad
> behavior.
I gave below some examples of what I consider to be bad behavior for the
sake of illustration.
Of course, I am aware that I consider bad content the continued
nonsenses, the straw man the lies, the falsification of archives or
ratings for promoting ad hominem.
Others are much more worried about some minor technological topics such
as a 441 error in the followup-to header.
One folk (I don't remember who) worried a lot of about changing the
subject title. It seems to me a good idea. Actually your personal non-
scientific discussion with Tom Potter is labeled in a separated thread
which I can easily filter by title and further ignore your mutual
accusations.
I find that rather effective when reading entire threads.
Again, if you disagree, just follows your own rules or that you want.
> I asked you what you think would be a measurable indicator of
> *effective* online scientific discussion? If *effective* online
> scientific discussion is occurring, what gets accomplished?
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
(...)
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html