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
Shubee
<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.
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.
Shubee
harry
"Shubee" <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9980a39a-710e-4956...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
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
BradGuth
As long as your topic or rant isn't going to change anything of the
past, present or future, as such you'll find little if any opposition
or concerted efforts by way of the mainstream status quo clowns (aka
pretend Atheists) trying to traumatize your topic to death.
Your topic or reply also can not be informative, because those in
charge of this DARPA Usenet/newsgroup are typically all-knowing to
start with, and they don't like being informed about anything good or
bad, that is unless they get credit for all the good and you take
credit for all that's bad.
Change or revision is simply forbidden, and deductive thinking about
revising the interpretation of most anything is simply out of the
question, as they will never let their guard down or even ignore a
given contribution of yours once they've made up their killer bee
swarm like intentions. In other words, don't breath any CO2 on these
folks, because they tend to go mainstream status quo postal at the
mere thought of changing or revising anything.
You might as well be trying to make the Pope Jewish, or vise versa.
Trust me, it isn't going to happen anymore so than having an honest
moderator in charge of a given science or physics related newsgroup
within this DARPA Usenet. All public groups simply have to fend for
themselves, and hope for the best.
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Shubee
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?
Shubee
Ian Parker
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.
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.
- Ian Parker
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
You are STILL lying, Juanshito
Here are the errors that you made, for your Alzheimer-impaired memory:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/396f4aa1a1171a7b
BradGuth
I've posted a reply and it didn't take, as well as are them nifty
topic gold stars being revised by those in charge. What gives?
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Androcles
Shit throwing chimpanzees should be denounced publicly, you
pair of totally ignorant shit throwing chimpanzees.
Here's my denouncement:
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
According to xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?
" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
-- cretin Jimmy Black fml...@organization.edu.
According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation
he wrote.
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?
Shubee
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
Dono
Correct,
But Juanshito, in trying to correct Eric, claimed different, so he got
slapped a little bit. :-)
Juanshito liked getting slapped so much that he keeps coming back for
more slaps. On a daily basis. :-)
Shubee
[snip crap]
You are still a smelly, shit-throwing chimpanzee.
harry
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.
Harald
Androcles
"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1216738...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
There you have it, you shit throwing chimpanzee.
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[...]
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 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.
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.
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. 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.
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?
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
Dono
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
You need to add this one to Juanshito's collection:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5cd8b0421f4f2b4a
Highlight:
"The third mistake being his confusion between the Lagrangian and the
energy in special relativity. Note that Eric *multiplies* by the
factor
(1 - (v^2/ c^2))
instead dividing by it. According to *Eric* when a particle travel to
energies close to c its energies vanishes... "
BradGuth
Humans need to be made to look as though important, as otherwise why
bother to contribute anything, especially of whatever might rock your
mainstream good ship LOLLIPOP that'll automatically exclude or banish
out of intellectual incest cultivated habit, rather than based upon
the honest intent or focus of a given topic or reply.
In other words, it's clear that you wouldn't change or improve upon
the format of public Usenet/newsgroups even if you could, and what
does that say about yourself and others of your status quo or bust
kind?
Eric Gisse
[...]
> In other words, it's clear that you wouldn't change or improve upon
> the format of public Usenet/newsgroups even if you could, and what
> does that say about yourself and others of your status quo or bust
> kind?
>
> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Why does it need changing, guthball? Keep in mind that if it does
change, it will not be in a way that is conductive to the way you
behave.
BradGuth
> 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
PD
<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?
PD
Cosmik de Bris
(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". It is your style that is the problem.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
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.
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.
Dirk Van de moortel
pan.2008.07...@canonicalscience.com
>
>> 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?
Many results?
"Tom Roberts" +liar
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=%22Tom+Roberts%22+%2Bliar
==> 1 hit in a reaction to *your* accusation
"Tom Roberts" +lye
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=%22Tom+Roberts%22+%2Blye
==> 0 hits - learn how to spell
"Tom Roberts" +lie
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=%22Tom+Roberts%22+%2Blie
==> 3 hits,
- 1 of them by pbm (gauge) calling Bruce Pew a liar
- 1 of them by pmb calling Jeff Relff a liar:
"Tom has never "hurt my feelings" and I've *never* held him to
be a crackpot. That's just plain silly and yet another lie."
- 1 of them by notorious crackpot greywolf42 (Barry Mingst) who
thinks everyone in the world is a liar:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PatheticLie.html
You follow guidelines, don't you?
Dirk Vdm
Juan R.
> On 22 Jul, 10:22, "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 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
>>
>> --
>> Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) http://canonicalscience.org
>
> 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.
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
pmpa...@btinternet.com
> > cited in a new version of USENET guidelines?
>
>
> "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 ]."
>
so. I notice that at one point you had one star against your posting
with 173 users. Google seem to have now corrected this. 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".
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.
> 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.
Shubee
<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
Shubee
<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?
> 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.
Shubee
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
jem
Shooby doesn't follow his own advice, though. Shooby's still waiting
for someone else to prove that his "weakest axioms" for Special
Relativity are inconsistent with Newtonian Relativity.
jmfbahciv
> dlzc wrote on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:40:43 -0700:
Why are you biting the hands you want to help you?
/BAH
Dirk Van de moortel
pan.2008.07...@canonicalscience.com
What an incredibly ignorant retard you are :-)
"Tom Roberts" +liar
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=%22Tom+Roberts%22+%2Bliar
==> 1 hit in a reaction to your accusation
"Tom Roberts" +lye
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=%22Tom+Roberts%22+%2Blye
==> 0 hits - learn how to spell
"Tom Roberts" +lie
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=%22Tom+Roberts%22+%2Blie
==> 3 hits,
- 1 of them by pbm (gauge) calling Bruce Pew a liar
- 1 of them by pmb calling Jeff Relff a liar:
"Tom has never "hurt my feelings" and I've never held him to
be a crackpot. That's just plain silly and yet another lie."
- 1 of them by notorious crackpot greywolf42 (Barry Mingst) who
thinks everyone in the world is a liar:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PatheticLie.html
It can't even properly use a search engine :-)
But it follows guidelines, doesn't it?
Dirk Vdm
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.
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.
Dono
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
> pan.2008.07.23.11.20...@canonicalscience.com
...but now you are reconsidering about adding it, eh? :-)
Juanshito has gone totally ballistic today, how about if you added the
whole page !
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
Tom Roberts
> 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.
Any competent person who examines the record will know who is right and
who is wrong, who is lying and who is not -- your claiming J.D.Jackson
reveals "ignorance of basic aspects of electromagnetic interactions"
says it all (in short: you ascribe your and C&V's mistakes to Jackson
and me; you have a GREATLY over-inflated opinion of your own abilities).
When you act like a crackpot, don't be surprised when people treat you
like one. Your many posts about "Guidelines", and your not following
them yourself, says it all.
Tom Roberts
BradGuth
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> harry wrote on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:47:37 +0200:
>
>
>
> > "Shubee" <e.Shu...@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 considerhttp://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html#3to 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.
What else would you expect from the Zionist/Nazis and of their
Republican Mafia that's in charge?
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) http://canonicalscience.org
You'll need bigger sticks and a battery of lose cannon fire in order
to defend your mindset of making these Usenet/newsgroups and the
attached world a better place.
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
PD
<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.
You know, Juan, you're really not as proficient at this defensive,
self-aggrandizing rationalization as Tom Potter. Tom is a master of
it, and I suggest you take lessons from him if you want to make a
*spectacular* show of defensive, self-aggrandizing rationalizations.
He even makes good use of words like "bigot" as serves his desires,
and you're really not taking advantage of those opportunities.
Eric Gisse
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> 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
Yea, this is the kind of emotional instability that scares me instead
of amuses me. I should probably stop poking the bipolar tiger with a
stick.
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 23, 7:00 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.
>
> You know, Juan, you're really not as proficient at this defensive,
> self-aggrandizing rationalization as Tom Potter. Tom is a master of
> it, and I suggest you take lessons from him if you want to make a
> *spectacular* show of defensive, self-aggrandizing rationalizations.
> He even makes good use of words like "bigot" as serves his desires,
> and you're really not taking advantage of those opportunities.
I disagree. This is pretty goddamn spectacular.
[snip]
Tonico
********************************************************
Why won't you guys take your increidibly stupid feuds the fuck out of
sci.math?
Thanx
Tonio
rick_...@hotmail.com
<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.
>
> c^2 ]."
>
> Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) http://canonicalscience.org
You forgot to say "end Zeta talk."
Tom Potter
> On Jul 23, 7:00 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.
>
> You know, Juan, you're really not as proficient at this defensive,
> self-aggrandizing rationalization as Tom Potter. Tom is a master of
> it, and I suggest you take lessons from him if you want to make a
> *spectacular* show of defensive, self-aggrandizing rationalizations.
> He even makes good use of words like "bigot" as serves his desires,
> and you're really not taking advantage of those opportunities.
de·fen·sive
-----------
1. serving to defend; protective: defensive armament.
2. made or carried on for the purpose of resisting attack
ag·gran·dize
------------
1. to widen in scope; increase in size or intensity; enlarge; extend.
2. to make great or greater in power, wealth, rank, or honor.
ra·tion·al·ize
------------
1. to remove unreasonable elements from.
2. to make rational or conformable to reason.
I would like to thank PD for again
playing the role of a bush whacker,
and demonstrating why folks should be on the "de·fen·sive",
against "irrational", immoral bush whackers,
who try to "ag·gran·dize" themselves,
their races and religions
by bushwhacking folks who try to introduce
"rationality" into discussions contaminated
by race/religion "ag·gran·dization".
As can be seen in the media and in the newsgroups,
some "bigoted" races and religions
have institutionalized "bigotry"
and use mass media and bush whacking
to silence and discredit folks who try
to promote "rationality".
The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from
his
own."
To read the stories of a few of the many folks
who have been victims of Institutionalized bigotry
visit the web site below.
<http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html>
Thanks again for playing the role of a bush whacker PD,
and demonstrating how dishonest, immoral people use bigotry
to try to control the flow of information.
Your pal,
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm
Juan R.
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 :-)
PD
<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. You just gave me some examples
of tactics you use to deal with examples of what you consider to be
bad behavior.
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?
PD
There. You see, Juan, Potter is a *master* at this. You have much to
learn. Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Side.
PD
Tom Potter
> On Jul 23, 9:30 pm,Tom Potter<tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 24, 1:10 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 23, 7:00 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.
>
> > > You know, Juan, you're really not as proficient at this defensive,
And as you can see Juan,
PD is a "master" bush whacker
and a "master" at using Institutionalized Bigotry
to try to silence or discredit folks who make truthful posts
that puts him, his religions or his race in
an unfavorable.
The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant
of any opinions differing from his own."
To see how Institutionalized Bigotry is used,
visit the web site below.
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html
As PD suggests, all good, honest folks
should put the spotlight on the "Dark Side"
by exposing their use of Institutionalized Bigotry.
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.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
PD
Why, Tom, I'm surprised at you! To my knowledge, I have never tried to
silence you! I may disagree vociferously with many of your
statements, but this does not constitute, nor should it be construed
as, intolerance or a desire to silence you.
If you find vociferous disagreement to innately constitute intolerance
and persecution, then I recommend that you move to a country where
vociferous disagreement is suppressed. Oh wait, I see you've already
done that.
PD
Can you please answer the above question, since this is the one I'm
interested in getting your read on?
Ian Parker
>
One of the good points of Science is that a student can critize a
Nobel Laueate at any scientific conference. The student could well be
right. I don't know what is meant by "institutionised bigotry". Let us
take a concrete example. If there is a better theory than Relativity
let us have it. Let it be subjected to Peer Group Review. In actual
fact referees, if anything, err on the side of giving unorthodox
theories perhaps too much credibility.
There is however a corpus of experiment, all theories have to fit
that. To my knowledge only Relativity does.
I sometimes get the feeling that Potter and his ilk know that what
they are saying is untrue. They hope though that people are not going
to notice this. Tom seems to have changed his ground. He no longer
says that Relativity is untrue but that it does not matter whether is
it or isn't. He talks about the cost/benefit ratio of gravity probes.
This is something that must be fought and fought vigorously. Posters
must post what they believe to be true. Anything else should be
resisted.
ukastronomy has suggested that Penco Valeeev gets his work peer group
reviewed. If his case is good it would be published. However the first
thing a referee would spot with light speed relative to source is
double stars. How can we see them the way we do? Is that
institutionised bigotry?
- Ian Parker
Androcles
"Tom Potter" <tdp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e2989ea-7ab1-452b...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html
--
Tom Potter
Phuckwit Duck isn't just a bigot, he's an arrogant ignorant fuckwit
and true Einstein dingleberry.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm
Eric Gisse
Am I the only one who is amused at crackpotter's ranting about the
dole and how taxpayer's monies are spent even though the left the
United States? If he cares so much, why did he leave?
[...]
PD
>
> Phuckwit Duck isn't just a bigot, he's an arrogant ignorant fuckwit
> and true Einstein dingleberry.
Androcles, I know it is highly and personally important to you to take
physicists down a peg, and no doubt this is entrained with some of
your own professional history. I know too that you have attempted
mightily to show up physicists and demonstrate that they are wrong
about something enough to accomplish your primary purpose. And
*everyone* knows that you haven't done a terrific job at that, and
this is principally your fault due to your sloppiness and general lack
of competence. And because of your inability to execute your plan, and
the fact that your attempts have generally produced nothing
substantial but tittering from your targets, it's not at all
surprising that this would come across to you as arrogant.
If an 85-pound weakling got mad at athletes and dared a champion
wrestler to a match and got chucked off the mat with ease in the first
8 seconds, the weakling might consider the unperturbed champion
arrogant.
It's also not surprising that this outcome would enrage you further
and fuel your original motive. All this accomplishes, however, is the
tightening of self-inflicted chains to a purpose you are not equipped
to accomplish. If you want to change that, then it is up to you to
unchain yourself long enough to get more properly equipped.
PD
Tom Potter
I am pleased to see PD admit
that as he knows he cannot "silence" me
that he used the common Institutionalized Bigotry tactic
of bushwhacking in his effort to discredit me.
I was however disappointed to see that PD
persisted in his effort to discredit me
by making the following statement:
"If you find vociferous disagreement to innately constitute
intolerance
and persecution, then I recommend that you move to a country where
vociferous disagreement is suppressed. Oh wait, I see you've already
done that."
As I have pointed out,
honest, MORAL, folks discuss issues
in a rational, intelligent, civilized, MORAL way,
whereas dishonest people try to silence and discredit messengers.
And as can be seen from his posting history,
PD is an active member of the gang
that uses Institutionalize Bigotry
( Bushwhacking, "Jimmy Cartering", personal attacks, etc.)
to try to control public discourse,
so they can implement their greedy, selfish agenda.
The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant
of any opinions differing from is own."
To read the stories of a few of the many folks
who have been victims of Institutionalized bigotry
visit the web site below.
<http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html>
--
Tom Potter
As can be seen,
PD has been well conditioned by race and religion
to use Institutionalized Bigotry and focus on messengers,
rather that address messages in a rational,
intelligent, civilized, MORAL way.
"Androcles" presents his arguments
in clear, explicit, graphic details on his web sites,
and if PD were an honest person
and a true seeker of wisdom and truth,
rather than a person conditioned to parrot Institutionalized Bigotry,
he would focus his efforts on "Androcles" clear, explicit "messages",
rather than using Institutionalized Bigotry tactics
in an effort to discredit "Androcles".
It is obvious that PD is the 85-pound weakling
who runs away and bushwhacks
because he is ill equipped to engage "Androcles"
and many others in "matches" on certain issues
dear to his race/religious controlled heart.
Hopefully PD will come to put wisdom and truth and justice
above Institutionalized race/religion motivated Greed and Bigotry.
Androcles
If the 50 kg weakling who has gotten mad at this mental athlete wishes
to be thrown off the mat let him first answer hanson's question.
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
According to xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?
" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
-- cretin Jimmy Black fml...@organization.edu.
According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation
he wrote.
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.
(How many Polacks does it take to change a light bulb?)
Jimmy Black and Jan Bielawski have the same initials, Dork Van der merde
should check to see if they are the same person.
"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.
The Uncle Stooopid doctrine:
http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.
Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).
According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on.
PD
Gee, and I just got done telling you that I wouldn't dream of trying
to silence you, and you take this as a sign that I'm trying to silence
you.
There's a name for this syndrome. Do you know what it is?
>
> And as can be seen from his posting history,
> PD is an active member of the gang
> that uses Institutionalize Bigotry
> ( Bushwhacking, "Jimmy Cartering", personal attacks, etc.)
> to try to control public discourse,
> so they can implement their greedy, selfish agenda.
>
> The definition of "bigot" is:
> "A prejudiced person who is intolerant
> of any opinions differing from is own."
>
> To read the stories of a few of the many folks
> who have been victims of Institutionalized bigotry
> visit the web site below.
>
> <http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html>
>
> --
> Tom Potter
>
Tom Potter
And as can be seen from his posting history,
PD is an active member of the gang
that uses Institutionalize Bigotry
( Bushwhacking, "Jimmy Cartering", personal attacks, etc.)
to try to control public discourse,
so they can implement their greedy, selfish agenda.
The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant
of any opinions differing from is own."
To read the stories of a few of the many folks
who have been victims of Institutionalized bigotry
visit the web site below.
<http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html>
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
Bob Cain
Juan, you seem to think they are all about you. They are not. You make too
much ado about nothing rather than simply sticking to science. By your obsession
with personalities and form you make everything else you do suspect, including
your very sanity.
Lighten up and get back to business. If you can't you might consider getting
help for your stuck point.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Pmb
"Bob Cain" <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:0uGdnZUY9N9z1AjV...@giganews.com...
While I myself have steered some of my attention away from flammers (which
was not the way I used to post) I do think Juan's efforts are a waste of his
time in some respect. Sure. People need to be corrected when they make
mistakes. The more arrogant the person is and the more unwilling they are to
admit their errors the more tempting it is to rub it in their face or
constantly remind them of it (which only servers to deter them from
admitting their mistakes in the future). But I do think that establishing
scientific arguement strategies is a worthwhile effort. But it is only
useful if all concerned parties are willing to abide by these strategies.
And we all know that isn't going to happen. But I do applaud Juan's effort.
I admire his principles in that respect, i.e. striving toward a better
newsgroup even when its likely that the effort will be for naught.
Pete