AAVSO Date Section Implodes
ukastronomy
http://groups.google.com/group/aavsodatasection/t/90defa61d38e5e59
Hilarious.
Can people even imagine someone setting up a group to help people do
data mining and not having a simple project ready for teaching any
interested newbies?
Usual thing, AAVSO needs volunteers to do it for them, not sure where
the credit will go, but you know, who cares.
Most people who do data work, even if they are members of national
astronomy groups, usually do it on their own. It's the nature of the
study more than anything, if there are more than two or three people
having to wait on others being able to get time to complete their part
of the work causes massive delays.
They've got Martin Piers Nicholson willing to take an active part,
maybe he can help them?
http://groups.google.com/group/aavsodatasection/browse_thread/thread/1a8ee3c10ef70f73
no one has shown him how to use macho, sdss, galex, 2mass, corot and
one or two other epoch photometry resources yet though so he won't be
able to help likely beyond the really easy ogle data which people can
use without being shown.
This one was entertaining too
http://groups.google.com/group/aavsodatasection/browse_thread/thread/2e31a8650799a0f6
Poor guy wants some help in data mining, finds this group, finds a
paper mentioned and linked to by this group (a paper which
incidentally is almost completely irrelevant to practical period
analysis of the sort of data usually available to variable star
analysis), and reads it, and asks for more advice. What happens? One
of the other group ask him to link to the paper. There are barely any
pages or data at http://sites.google.com/site/aavsodatasection/ and it
was posted to the list, but the guy had never noticed it.
Anyway, it looks like it isn't a place to go for help, but they need
help, so people, especially any of you aavso members out there, your
AAVSO needs you, so volunteer and join up straight away. Save your
data section.
One or two of their members seem to have been pressganged somewhat,
I'm told, yeah they agreed to help out if needed, but being declared
chief members? So volunteers would be nice for them.
After all AAVSO will be the only thing to use and the only variable
star group worth being in soon, it seems :-
http://mira.aavso.org/pipermail/aavso-discussion/2009-July/015302.html
from an AAVSO staff member that.
The fact that lots of people who contribute to their archives don't
even use filtered photometry, which won't be fixed by using ensemble
methods, is ignored. The fact that all the other data archives
belonged to other national groups and that AAVSO just shoves in data
from anywhere, including importing ASAS3 data (which had led to at
least one false alarm because someone compared the ASAS3 data to the
rest of the AAVSO data instead of using the ASAS3 data at source, as
the ASAS3 data is imported divorced from source context) is not
mentioned. There's no surprise that in a group supposedly about data
_analysis_ the only thing Mike could think of was to suggest people
input someone else's data into the AAVSO data archive for them
http://groups.google.com/group/aavsodatasection/t/b36b4beb04287ae4
No analysis, just do something that lets aavso say it has all the data
in one place. Maybe then if someone uses the data they have to credit
it to AAVSO and not CSS/CRTS? Or maybe they won't ever realise where
it originally came from if they don't check stuff carefully.
Of course, it's not a problem, gotta liaise with CRTS to get this
data, not just lift it, that's covered already.
It's like Nicholson really, empty rhetoric rules the day. Instead
practical results are what lead the way, not claims and empty
rhetoric. And the practical results, the end products, often show the
reality by their absence or poor quality. Look at eJAAVSOs 87, 92 and
96 for examples.
Wow, Martin, this spouting stuff out on usenet and blogs and that is
really easy, I make no wonder you do it all the time. Must be even
easier for you as you mostly do nothing but stick bits of cut and
paste together and spout only empty rhetoric devoid of reality and
only aimed at showing how great your work is, thinking your worldview
overrides facts. I still can't undestand why you think posting some
image of TNOs from a rentalscope amounts to anything, a dot. Doesn't
look as if your measures were accepted by MPC? Were they, or didn't
you bother mentioning it. You declare stuff as if it is important
sometimes for reasons beyond most of us.
The AAVSO Data Section needs help, why aren't you contributing to
them? You're an AAVSO member, a self confessed data miner. You've
offered them help, where is it?
Now don't go assuming some others haven't given a tad of help, like
you usually assume, remember not everyone else brags all over the web
when they do something. Where do you think they got the ogle
photometry link from in their data sources section? Amongst a tad of
other stuff.
Designed to Fail? Good question. But you always seem to ask it about
the wrong things. Why not ask it about this data section and about
your own projects?
Can you think of a reason why a group with the goals mentioned here
http://sites.google.com/site/aavsodatasection/
can be created without any project or infrastructure or assistance
mentors and backup in place? One guy joins, teacher of physics and
maths no less, and he gets no help at all.
You should help them out, oh self confessed great mentor and tutor.
That should help put them out of their misery.
badastrobuster
It is my view that it is to a large extent by what you write and what
you do and to a lesser extend by what people, reliable people, people
from Northampton and people who attended the joint AAVSO/BAA meeting
in Cambridge say about you, your personality and your EMPLOYMENT
HISTORY.
Simple really.
You condemn yourself through the wide range of organisations and
people you have "attacked" in print. Selected highlights can be found
at http://www.geocities.com/badastrobuster/index.htm. It is all there
- the attacks, your subsequent shamefaced admissions of error and
your banning from multiple groups.
You condemn yourself through your anonymous postings, the vast array
of different user names you also post under, the identity theft that
you admitted in 2008 and repeated in 2009, the lies, the obsessive
repetition of claims made without evidence, your condemnation of
behaviour you exhibit yourself ... the list goes on and on and on.
You condemn yourself through the results you published, then called
"totally spurious" but were too idle to correct.
Well time for me to move on. I've really enjoyed creating a permanent
record of your misdeeds and I am sure it will be in safe hands now it
has been passed on. I've got houses to sell, inheritances to spend,
schools to oversee, projects to finish so ... no more time for the
"Nutter from Northampton".
Have a sad life John - like you do at present.
ukastronomy
> http://groups.google.com/group/aavsodatasection/t/90defa61d38e5e59
>
> Hilarious.
>
> Can people even imagine someone setting up a group to help people do
> data mining and not having a simple project ready for teaching any
> interested newbies?
>
> Usual thing, AAVSO needs volunteers to do it for them, not sure where
> the credit will go, but you know, who cares.
>
> Most people who do data work, even if they are members of national
> astronomy groups, usually do it on their own. It's the nature of the
> study more than anything, if there are more than two or three people
> having to wait on others being able to get time to complete their part
> of the work causes massive delays.
>
> They've got Martin Piers Nicholson willing to take an active part,
> maybe he can help them?
>
>
> no one has shown him how to use macho, sdss, galex, 2mass, corot and
> one or two other epoch photometry resources yet though so he won't be
> able to help likely beyond the really easy ogle data which people can
> use without being shown.
>
> This one was entertaining too
>
>
> Poor guy wants some help in data mining, finds this group, finds a
> paper mentioned and linked to by this group (a paper which
> incidentally is almost completely irrelevant to practical period
> analysis of the sort of data usually available to variable star
> analysis), and reads it, and asks for more advice. What happens? One
> of the other group ask him to link to the paper. There are barely any
What was the point of this one?
Well, it gives Martin the Martyr something to run to Uncle Arne with
and do some tittle tattling.
He likes that. Being able to accuse people of 'attacks' and accuse
them of being rude convinces him that the content of that person's
posts, the itemised facts and details, are rubbished and false.
It's not only seti lovers and tilt worshippers and martian legbone
fetishists who love to play games. There are lots of folk who like to
say "science" on their stuff, amateurs, groups, even some
professionals, like to play the claiming things game without recourse
to data.
Cosmologists are doing a good impersonation of this at the moment.
Braneworlds, superstrings, quintessence, all sorts of things, but not
enough data to choose or make one of them unique from the others. So
it becomes like religion, people follow the one they believe, and keep
the faith. Weird really, seeing as quite a few people follow
cosmological arguments as a replacement to religion based creation
myths. Sure, cosmologists have a lot more maths that they can through
around compared to jehovah's witnesses and scientologists, but if all
that's happening is someone is throwing maths around and shouting
"hey, believe us, we're right", well, don't seem all that different
after a while.
I mean, you just have to look in the moderated sci.astro.research,
here's an interesting one
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/browse_thread/thread/85ebed4e579e4fd0#
Fair enough. Who knows, the guy's really hard sums might be fine.
Where's the problem then?
"SX Phe stars are "simple", high-amplitude, radial-mode oscillators"
Oh. Well, some SX Phe stars might be simple high amplitude radial
mode oscillators, but not all are. SX Phe stars aren't even defined
properly, because they can't be. Possibly after GAIA when a lot of
them have had their Galactic Orbits closely defined, and especially if
someone measures their metallicity better.
But the high amplitude objects, especially at low Galactic Latitudes,
are usually known as HADS (high amplitude delta scutids). High
amplitude in HADS means relatively, because all SX Phe and delta
Scutid stars are _low_ amplitude radial mode oscillators. Some are
multiperiodic, some may, or may not have, nonradial mode osciallation
superposed. Work in progress from COROT and KEPLER will have more to
say on that in time. He notes two double mode ones. Gotta be careful
sometimes to check whether an SX Phe star is a double mode SX Phe star
or a delta Scutid, which can be mulitmode.
Thirty years of data on an SX Phe star it says. Continuous?
Dunno. It can all be very tricky can these sorts of things, the guy
might be perfectly right, he might be totally wrong, he might be, as
Pauli put it, not even wrong.
But when the classical view of SX Phe stars being Thick Disc simple
radial mode oscillators isn't necessarily certain any more and may
just be a convenient pigeonhole for the cataloguers, there is a
problem at the outset. Maybe the specific stars he chose are fine,
who knows?
One damn things for sure, his post mentions masses. Well unless he
knows of any eclipsing binary with radial velocitites SX Phe stars, or
some SX Phe star that's a visual binary with a relatively short period
and damn good parallax, and some way of separating the system's whole
mass into it's component parts (ie M1 and M2), then their stellar
masses are purely theoretical and in no way empirically calibrated.
And we're talking up to a factor of two out. Now if these scaling
ratios are such that that doesn't matter, well when you go nonlinear
it's easy to get stuff to ratio match, because "numbers" that are
quite distant from each other get closer together.
I just picked that one at random, first one I came across looking
through sci.astro.research. The work may be totally valid, I dunno,
it's really hard sums. But the SX Phe bit? A bit worrying, some in
the field don't even use that term anymore as the objects aren't
necessarily as plain and discrete a group as once thought, and there
may be some vagaries due to metallicity between objects too.
It's getting to be all one big damn fudge is astronomy. Quite
depressing in the anniversary year that learning via observation is
being celebrated in IYA2009. Angels on pinheads stuff abounds.
ukastronomy
Well, Nicholson, you prove my point yet again.
You regularly blog and post all the time wittering rubbish and
whenever anyone challenges you on it you get very rude and very
personal in the conviction that this means you have "won" when it
isn't even a competition.
Your sad life consists of habitually posting to these groups time
after day, for years, saying how great you have been, and achieving
nothing.
You claim to have met people in Cambridge who know me now when I have
had no contact with the local astronomical community in nearly two
decades. Because you like to fudge and twist the facts.
You quote selected highlights on blogs and web pages. You forget I
took the piss out of you in 2008 when I played your games on usenet
and played the multiple identities game to show how stupid you are for
doing it.
And most fascinating of all it seems you still think that you can
ignore the over half a dozen deliberate attempts you have used to fool
people to back you up. As you say I played a game last year on usenet
groups to take the piss out of you, and admitted it, as an
illustration of what you did. On something as poxy and
inconsequential as usenet.
You used these methods to a much large degree, without admitting them,
to try and engender false sympathy and a self aggrandising agenda.
So, by your own definition, in your own post above, you are beyond
sad.
You need to brag about your great astronomy work, but you can't
because you are rubbish at it. You know you are that's why you get so
personal and nasty in replies instead of addressing the issues raised.
Well, get angry, it will do you no good. You're work is still empty,
you can't even copycat properly, and a lot of the leading figures in
AAVSO and BAAVSS say far worse about you behind your back than some
people who haven't met in nearly two decades, and didn't even know
very well then, say about me. Directors, exdirectors, and senior
members of the BAA and BAAVSS comment upon you and your work.
When it comes to the Cambridge BAA/AAVSO meeting I was told by these
people you only attended the one day to do your own talk, and wasn't
seen around much after the talks were over, so no doubt you had in
depth talks.
Why Gary and others bother telling me crap about you I know not, I
don't care really.
But thanks, you've shown it again. How crap and sad I am, how crap
and sad you are, doesn't matter to the point of you deliberately
pretending to be many people, without admitting it, your getting
things absolutely wrong, your bragging about things that can be shown
to be false, irrespective of any out of context comments you make on
posts and emails of mine in the past in _discussion_ groups, groups
where people chat, and work things out.
Patrick Wils told me off for apologising to Matthew Templeton you
know, you know, Patrick, him you claim great store by for your AAVSO
VSX work, so you can't knock him. Because I wasn't wrong. And
Patrick said so. I missed a bit about the most recent periods, and
said there were none, when there were, but Patrick said I shouldn't
have apologised still because in essence what I said was correct. I
had to point out to Patrick that I didn't apologise in full, just for
the bit I got wrong, and that my post clearly stated that the original
points I made still held.
But you don't quote things like this.
Martin, I'm glad you're angry enough to be rude, because I like people
to see what a nasty viscious little peace of shit you are. You
normally do these attacks in private posts, Wolfgang Renz will attest
to this, how you use abuse when you don't get your way. Arne Henden
will attest to having seen evidence of your secretly using different
identities to pretend to be people supporting yourself, so will Mike
Simonsen, Roger Pickard, Gary Poyner. Many others. They know what
you are like. Why the are too scared to deal with you I know not,
because you are all piss and wind.
As for the banning from email lists, I strongly stated, to many
people, about two years ago, including Sebastian Otero and Patrick
Wils, that as I don't need any of these groups in order to do science
and astronomy, I would get myself banned from as many variable star
lists as possible simply by pointing out data and facts, whilst
laughing in the background whilst people like Gary Poyner decided to
report you, off their own bat I didn't ask them, they decided to do it
on their own, to report you to vsnet alert because these people were
pissed off with your games copycatting Taichi. I thought you should
be allowed to do it, it's all good evidence. Gary was pissed off
vsnet never answered him.
And I still can't get banned from vsnet permanently, their security
and moderator skills are abysmal. Create a new email address and
you're in, all automated, no human moderator. That's impossible with
aavso groups, despite all the viagra spam they let through, people
can't sneak in anymore.
Oh, and Nicholson, don't forget it isn't you people ask for contact
details for on lists when they want help, it's me.
And incidentally, that time you tried the little trick of sending a
long list of email addresses to Bob Argylle and then said that who
knows where I was now (and also noted that most of the email addresses
were dead now so no use trying them, so why include them? Just to
make some spiteful point no doubt), he forwarded it to me, to let me
know you were trying some supposedly subtle backstabbing trick, and
commented on your trick.
I'm glad you are busy and now have to get on to some important stuff
with schools. That sounds like the usual strength of Northants County
Council.
Will this important stuff make any difference to the fact that eJAAVSO
87 and 92 are empty papers? Will it make up for the errors of
statement in your eJAAVSO 97 claims? Will it dismiss the fact that
you attack groups and organisations under false identities, secretly
created ones not admitted to ones made to take the piss out of you on
google groups in inconsequential usenet groups, but ones you created
to attack organisations whilst cowardly hiding, will these important
things you have to do solve all these problems?
It is nice to leave you feed lines, little setups, like the
generalised one about spurious doubles, which you use for years. It's
still the case, it seems, that the only doubles removed from wds have
been a handful of yours. They appeared one week and disappeared the
next. What happened? Were you rude to someone again? It's difficult
to keep up with is your stuff. I mostly only comment about stuff I
stumble across, who knows how the hell much you get up to if someone
followed your stuff rigorously. I still stumble across stuff on the
web of yours I've never heard of before, like the Varley post on the
open cluster groups, whilst looking for other stuff. I can't believe
you forget that group existed and didn't delete it.
It is very much a pity that many people who say things about you
behind your back haven't the balls to say them in public. I know some
have said them to you in private.
They say things to me about me, fine, discussion time. But you
normally just get to abuse Kelleher and Valev and that on these
lists. I gave you a chance to have some fun here but all you did was
get rude and post links to your crappy selectively edited highlights
blogs again.
No explanations given about your work.
Come on, post to avson, baavss, vsnet alert, cvnet, aavso data
section. They miss you, and need you back. I'm banned from some of
those, you'll be safe. Contribute. Let the fuckers suffer you, I
love to hear them whine about you seeing as if they'd stood up to you
like the other folk did you would be stuck only whining on blogs and
in usenet about variable star groups being designed to fail, just like
with your double star stuff.
Summary : people only need to read your papers and web pages to see
how good you are. You know this and are very self conscious of it,
that's why your attacks just get rude and do not address the points.
And why you have to engage in such strong attacks instead of just
ignoring some drivel spouted in somewhere as inconsequential as these
lists.
Your turn to have the last word.
I'm getting bored with taking this seriously again, you're so damn
comical. I've given you some names this time so you can email to
these people and rat on me for saying they said things, and if they
are bollockless enough they can pretend they didn't say them. And
then you may get more supporters, and maybe I'll get hated and
dismissed by even more people. And your papers will still be full of
empty crap and your webpages full of pseudoscience.
It's not lamarckism you know, your work can't achieve any quality just
be saying it.
And for those nonplussed about all this and what the hell the point
is, well, I found after coming back to astronomical discussion groups
after a gap a year or few ago, that Nicholson had been actively
posting stuff about me all over the place on blogs and webpages and
groups for no good reason, because I wasn't even around on lists or
even commenting on him.
So nowadays I just return the favour. He only has his usenet ghettoes
and blogs for astronomy, next to no one takes him seriously anywhere
else, but he likes to use them because of the high profile he can get
on google searches if he uses keywording and repeat linking to his
webpages in sigs.
Every now and again a little bit of his own technique can be used
against him.
Return of the favour.
It appears to have not stopped me from being able to publish. It
appears to have not stopped me from being able to liaise with and work
with serious amateur variable star analysts or professional
astronomers. Probably nobody takes any of it seriously at all, except
Martin, who protests too much.
Martin Nicholson (NMR)
ukastronomy
On Jul 29, 5:39 am, badastrobuster <newbinar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I've got houses to sell, inheritances to spend,
An interesting way to honour ones deceased relatives, by using them in
a cheap shot on a usenet group.
Michael Koppelman
that much is true. Our goal is primarily to report on the data mining
activities of our members and our secondary goal is to provide
direction to members who are looking for projects. We won't be
successful without enthusiastic involvement by the amateur and
professional community. So please check out the site and the Google
group and get involved! I'm not the scientific leader of the group,
I'm merely trying to facilitate interaction among our members.
Cheers,
M.