Chemistry Talk Chemistry Talk    FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  ZIONIST JEW MAFIA: BBC says "ENOUGH!!!". BBC decides to publ Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 905, 906, 907, 908  Next          Chemistry Talk Forum Index -> Chemistry Talk View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message hanson Guest Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:27 am    Post subject: Re: The real reason for higher gas prices. "DB" <abc@some.net> wrote in message news:Wrwek.418$2N2.41@fe091.usenetserver.com... only arguments for argument's sake... hahahaha... Quote: hanson wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7dec22d709f02903?hl=en wherein it says: "....thanks for the laughs and the money... ahahaha.." Quote: and now again, Dan .... thanks for the MONEY... ahahahahanson Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Eeyore Guest Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:39 am    Post subject: Re: The real reason for higher gas prices. DB wrote: Quote: I don't think you will get hanson to engage in an intelligent conversation about peak oil. The last 3 words were superfluous. Graham Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor hanson Guest Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 7:30 am    Post subject: Re: The real reason for higher gas prices. "Eeyore" the Eyesore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:487AA031.74505E28@hotmail.com... Quote: DB wrote: I don't think you will get hanson to engage in an intelligent conversation about peak oil. Quote: "Eeyore", the Eyesore quibbed" The last 3 words were superfluous. Graham Quote: hanson wrote: 1. Right, because "about peak oil" are useless lamentations since there is no "peak oil" for at least the next 150 years... You are mooches. 2. Intelligent discussions are one thing, but little green idiots like you guys, just parrot and keep advocating, unwittingly, FOR the nefarious agenda of big oil, but you are too fanatical to see that. 3. Thanks for the money, suckers.... ahahahaha... Here is why: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7dec22d709f02903?hl=en .... ahahaha..... ahahahaha... ahahahanson" Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor DB Guest Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:38 am    Post subject: Re: The real reason for higher gas prices. Eeyore wrote: Quote: DB wrote: I don't think you will get hanson to engage in an intelligent conversation about peak oil. The last 3 words were superfluous. I'd say all of'm. Back by popular demand, hanson on peak oil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bHZRSlhJxY Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Yevgen Barsukov Guest Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:21 pm    Post subject: Re: The real reason for higher gas prices. On Jul 13, 3:05 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote: Quote: "Yevgen Barsukov" <evgen...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fefcd07e-d29c-46b4-a285-7e784197479a@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com... We are very far from "almost empty" side, so at this point it does not even make sense to discuss the "low access" resources, although they will certainly play  a role once we get there. Regards, Yevgen hanson wrote: Evgeny, you are, like "DB", arguing for the wrong side. The Green Turds and the Oil Boys have successfully brainwashed you guys  and made you cry about the "higher gas prices"... which is exactly that these fuckers want you to do... ahahaha... Your crying fills their wallets... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... .... ahahaha...  Now since you too, like poster "DB" are somewhat slow on the uptake read here where it says in:  http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34?hl=en ------- The C&CH politics ------- ....ahahaha... ahahanson In your previous replay you brought up some interesting point (about C vs O2 relation). I explained the kinetics aspect of C availability, which made it clear that while point is interesting, it has little relevance because most of "thermodynamically" available C has too much kinetic limitations (e.g. resistance) to be energetically relevant. Simply speaking, you will lose all the energy across in form of I^2*R drop across high access barriers if you try to use it. How about trying to disprove my point again. I am kind of missing the intellectual challenge that the first post provided. Regards, Yevgen Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Yevgen Barsukov Guest Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:33 pm    Post subject: Re: The real reason for higher gas prices. Quote: So, even at a ***1% *** availability of this recourse estimate, that "we are running out of oil", "End of the oil age", or "Peak oil", scasm may have some gravitas only in 1500 years from now! ... ahahahahaha.. 1% of "accessible C" is huge number and totally sucked up from the finger without slightest justification. How about 0.001% is accessible (that is more close to presently known reserves). In this case we will run out of accessible reserves completely in only 150 years and be at the half of present production by 2050. Pretty much like Hubbert curve predicts. Btw I have nothing against high oil price. In fact I think it is not high enough because 1) speculators are thinking too short term 2) speculators did not quite grasp Hubbert curve consequences and because 3) they don't consider the true value of C resouced due to the fact that release of CO2 will be needed not only to power economy but also to keep the earth warm enough by artificial heat-shield for another 10000 years until present ice-age will finish (we are presently in an ice age according to Milenkovich solar cycles, but staying comfortably warm due to CO2 and methane). Regards, Yevgen Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor hanson Guest Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:19 pm    Post subject: Re: The real reason for higher gas prices. "DB" Dan Bloomquist <abc@some.net> wrote in message news:2Tzek.101097$c5.88869@fe101.usenetserver.com... Back by popular demand, hanson on peak oil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bHZRSlhJxY Quote: hanson wrote: Thanks for the plug, Dan.... ahahahaha... ahahaha... That must be one of my clients who is making money because, unlike you and other greenies, he understood the oil game that is really played, which I have told you about in this thread: Quote: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7dec22d709f02903?hl=en http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34?hl=en wherein YOU even quotes me, hanson, who showed you the first principle base of the oil game, demonstrating that "peak-oil" is a periodically reoccurring con and scam by the procuducers & "The real reason for higher gas prices": Quote: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/1f25c61fc45ad11b?hl=en wherein hanson wrote: Initially, "they" say the earth had an anaerobic envelope ~0 % O2. At hand back then was only (relevant) CO2 and Carbonates. So, Photosynth. etc. has liberated by now ~21% free O2 into the air: That translates into ~1E+21 gr or ~1E+15 tons of available O2. So, each 32 gr of O2 buried somewhere 12-14 gr = 1 C (max CH4). Hence, there is 1E+21 * 12/32 = 5E+20 gr or ~ 5.E+14 tons of fossil C in store. So, at a current use/consumption/burning of 3E+15 gr/yr of oil, the fossil stuff (coal, oil & CH4) will be reoxydised in 5E+20 gr / 3E+15 gr/yr =~ 1.5E+05 years! Quote: So, even at a ***1% *** availability of this recourse estimate, that "we are running out of oil", "End of the oil age", or "Peak oil", scasm may have some gravitas only in 1500 years from now! .... ahahahahaha.. Quote: So Dan, you and all you whiners, enviro and otherwise, get with the program and don't shed green crocodile tears but knead yourself some dough, so that you can laugh all the way to the bank instead of cursing your empty tank. ahahaha.... ahahahahanson Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor hanson Guest Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: The real reason for higher gas prices. "Yevgen Barsukov" <evgenijb@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4c7cdb91-c838-454f-9981-438b3f6e8403@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com... How about trying to disprove my point again. I am kind of missing the intellectual challenge that the first post provided. Regards, Yevgen Quote: hanson wrote: Evgeny, my friend, hanson is not here to disprove any point that any poster may make. hanson does not debate. hanson has shown you and others how to make money off the scam that you all are crying about. Here are some details..Take it of leave it: Quote: "DB" Dan Bloomquist <abc@some.net> wrote in message news:2Tzek.101097$c5.88869@fe101.usenetserver.com... Back by popular demand, hanson on peak oil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bHZRSlhJxY Quote: hanson wrote: Thanks for the plug, Dan.... ahahahaha... ahahaha... That must be one of my clients who is making money because, unlike you and other greenies, he understood the oil game that is really played, which I have told you about in this thread: Quote: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7dec22d709f02903?hl=en http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34?hl=en wherein YOU even quotes me, hanson, who showed you the first principle base of the oil game, demonstrating that "peak-oil" is a periodically reoccurring con and scam by the procuducers & "The real reason for higher gas prices": Quote: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/1f25c61fc45ad11b?hl=en wherein hanson wrote: Initially, "they" say the earth had an anaerobic envelope ~0 % O2. At hand back then was only (relevant) CO2 and Carbonates. So, Photosynth. etc. has liberated by now ~21% free O2 into the air: That translates into ~1E+21 gr or ~1E+15 tons of available O2. So, each 32 gr of O2 buried somewhere 12-14 gr = 1 C (max CH4). Hence, there is 1E+21 * 12/32 = 5E+20 gr or ~ 5.E+14 tons of fossil C in store. So, at a current use/consumption/burning of 3E+15 gr/yr of oil, the fossil stuff (coal, oil & CH4) will be reoxydised in 5E+20 gr / 3E+15 gr/yr =~ 1.5E+05 years! Quote: So, even at a ***1% *** availability of this recourse estimate, that "we are running out of oil", "End of the oil age", or "Peak oil", scasm may have some gravitas only in 1500 years from now! .... ahahahahaha.. Quote: So Dan, you and all you whiners, enviro and otherwise, get with the program and don't shed green crocodile tears but knead yourself some dough, so that you can laugh all the way to the bank instead of cursing your empty tank. ahahaha.... ahahahahanson Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor hanson Guest Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:53 pm    Post subject: Re: The real reason for higher gas prices. "Yevgen Barsukov" <evgenijb@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b7038ae4-b1a8-453e-b8b3-77545ea690bc@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... nothing of interest to me. -- I said what I had to say in http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/2bf3c3f7a9d8a214?hl=en Thanks for the laughs and the money though, Evgeny. ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Jere Jääskeläinen Guest Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:33 am    Post subject: Re: NEO:lle päivän kiksit Aika huvittavaa, että tiedotusvälineet ovatr kiinnostuneet vain Kallin taustamaksajista, miksi? Miksi ihmeessä ei oteta esille esim. Anne Holmlundin ja vaikka nyt Paavo Lipposen kaltaisten kiistatta tiedettyjä ydinalan madonlukukytköksiä SDP:n vaalien alla ja noin? Niistä voisimme saada enemmän kuin mukaansatempaavaa viitettä siihen mistä esim. Vapaavuori helsinkikeskeisen ydinintonsa ja Suomen maakuntien syöntiinsä potkun ottaa? Nimittäin näiden kaikien taustasponsorit kun ymmärtääkseni on JO valmiiksi lehdistölle tiedotettuna! Mitä hyötyä edes olisi lain kirjaimella, jossei asiasta kaikkein kiinnostuneimmille , eli äänestäjille asti sponsseista realityä tulisi? Ai niin pahus tosiaan, ei ne tulekkaan!.. ..( Kallia moitti muutamia viikoja sitten mm. TVO:n johtajana tunnettu P. Simola. Hän oli kovin käärmeistynyt siitä, että heidän lukuisat lanserauksensa seutukuntien politikoille olivat käpyisästi kuivuneet kasaan. Pertti prutisi pahasti siitä, että OL-3 hanke meni kuin kiulu sikalaan, mutta tämä OL-4, niin sille löytyi TVO:n suunnattomaksi kauhuksi tykittävää kaatajaa massoittain. Oi voi ja jäi sen verran ydinalala hampaankoloon, että päättivät siltä seisomalta silkaksi "kostoksi" erottaa Kallin myös , .. .oi ja niin tosiaan Forttumin isopalkkavirasta.. ..Uups, jaa niin ei meillä näistä mahdolisista sponssi Posivoista ja Fennovoimista saa missään virallisesti haastella. Voi kauhistus sentään juu.. .! Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Järvenpää Guest Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:02 am    Post subject: Re: Ohjeia apurungon vaihtoon - katsastuksessa tuli hylky *(Senverta sontaluukusta artikkelissa tutusti, että vaatii asiataustoittavaa lisäkommenteeria myös energiaosaajalta.) [Tuula Laatikainen, Tekniikka ja Talous, 05.06.2008] Voima hajaantuu, energiaeliitti odottaa historiallista muutostaMaailman voimantuotannon rakenteet mullistuvat seuraavan kymmenen vuoden aikana. Tuulivoima, aurinkovoima, maalämpö ja muu hajautettu tuotanto -------möyhivät alan rakenteet uusiksi. *Kaikesta paistaa läpi miten EU:n heittämä tulevaisuuden uudisenergian v.2020= 25% ja jatkon v.2050= 50% on jo mielletty tuleviksi reaalifaktoiksi. On sanottava, että ydinalan pudotustaistelu värittää uutisointia sen verta tykillä Suomessa, ettei näitä artikkeleja nauramatta läpi laske. Mutta aina sitä toki voi "olennaistaa osaava"!) Konsulttiyhtiö Pricewaterhouse Coopers väittää muutoksia jopa historiallisiksi. Se perustaa väitteensä laajaan kyselyyn, johon vastasi 118 toimitus- ja pääjohtajaa maailman suurimmista energiayhtiöistä sähköalalta kaasuun. Vastaajat edustivat 37 maata. Suomalaisyhtiöitä ei ollut mukana. *??.. .Ilmeisesti Suomen ydinenergiastrategialla ole ydinepäonnistuttuaan sen vertaa Euroopassa kannattajia, että kiinostaisi maailman ainut ydinharhalaukauksemme OL-3 enää tosimielellä Euroopassa? Todella, todella outoa suhtautumista energiapäättäjiltä Ranskan lippulaivapiloottiin siis??! *Olisiko syynä myös valitukseni siirtyminen plutoniumpolttorikoksista Areva/TVO:lta USA:han syynä näihin jopa näin tramaattisesti? Ehkä ydinala ei enää usko laserisotooppiharhoihinsa lainkaan , koska tosiaan 90%saanti romahti täysflopein 11% ja asia on sen perään vaiettu KAIKKIALLA! Uraanin ja plutoniumin lopuminen MIT-1988 ennusteen mukaan 2007 oli ja on kertakaikkinen YDINALAKATASTROFI vailla vertaa! ******************************** Johtajat saivat vihreitä ajatuksia Mahtisanoja ei puutu konsulttien ennusteista, mutta maailman energiaeliitin ajatukset näyttävät todella muuttuneet parina viime vuotena. *MIKSI? Miksi juurivasta 2 vuotta?Mitä ihmettä on siis tapahtunut näin rajua niinä vuosina, joina olen ydintietoa revittänyt eetteriimme! ..Öö.. ..mitä ilmeisemmin HILLITTÖMÄN PALJON tässä viitattuja muutoksia!) Vielä viisi vuotta sitten johtajia huoletti eniten sähkönsiirron kapasiteetin kasvattaminen, sähkön riittävyys ja tukkuhintojen heilahtelu. Nyt energiaeliitistä tärkeimpiä asioita on uusiutuvan energian lisääminen, kasvihuonekaasupäästöjen hillintä ja tuotannon tehokkuus. Jätteidenpoltto kuuluu merkittäviin tulevaisuuden energiantuotantomuotoihin, vaikka Suomessa sen osuus on vähäinen. Energiainsinöörit käyttivät vuosikymmeniä saadakseen polttoaineista irti mahdollisimman paljon energiaa. Paljon tehtiin työtä myös voimalaitosten rikki- ja typpidioksidipäästöjen kuriin saamiseksi. ------------ Hiilen käytöstä voimantuotannossa ei päästä eroon. Hiilen osuus sähköntuotannossa kasvaa 40 prosentista 45 prosenttiin vuoteen 2030 mennessä. *On hienoa havaita miten esim Saksa uskalta Ruotsin lailla satsata jo tänä vuona starttaamiinsa päästöttömän polton laitoksiinsa. saaden jo mukaansa koko muuta maailmaa ja hyvä niin. Maakaasunkin käyttö kasvaa kohisten. -------------- Pienten sähkölaitosten kohtalo kiinni omasta tuotannosta Konsulteille historialliset muutokset ovat kiva uutinen, onhan konsultin leipä kiinni jatkuvasta muutoksesta. Monet muutosennusteet ovat energia-alalla kuitenkin menneet pieleen. Esimerkiksi runsas vuosikymmen sitten Suomen sähkölaitosten määrän arveltiin romahtavan muutamiin kymmeniin, mutta laitoksia on yhä lähes sata. Pyyhkiikö ilmastonmuutos lopulta pienet sähkölaitokset maailmankartalta? Uudet tuotantotekniikat ja tehokkuuden parantaminen vaativat suuria pääomia. Hätönen ei kuitenkaan lämpene ennustamaan suomalaisyhtiöiden rajua vähenemistä. ----- "Hankaluuksia voi tulla yhtiöillä, joiden oman tuotannon osuus on pieni", Hätönen sanoo. Globaalit yhtiöt porskuttavat Maailman energiaeliitti uskoo kuitenkin globaalien brändien porskuttavan historiallisessa käänteessä. Ranskalainen Electricite de France ja saksalainen Eon ovat jopa yllättävän ylivoimaisia energiabrändejä globaalisti energiajohtajien mielestä. Amerikkalaiset ja venäläiset energiayhtiöt jäävät alueellisiksi yrittäjiksi. *Tätä ei usko kyllä nauramatta KUKAAN! Todellisuudessa käy juuri päinvastoin. Valtioimpperialismimonoliitit tulevat sortumaan omaan toimimattomuuteensa, kuten oikein on. Johtajat ennustavat kuitenkin isoja rakenteellisia muutoksia energia-alalle, kun esimerkiksi hiiltä käyttävät yhtiöt liittoutuvat ja fuusioituvat hiilen tuottajien kanssa. Sama koskee kaikkia polttoaineita----. Esimakua uusista energiajäteistä saatiin viime vuonna, kun kazakstanilainen uraanintuottaja Kazatomprom osti kymmenesosan yhdysvaltalaisesta ydinvoimaloiden rakentajasta Westinghouse Electricistä. Se kuuluu nykyään japanilaiseen Toshibaan. *Suks ja muuten SYVÄLTÄ! Maailman energianegatiivisen kaivuun uraanijämät ei kiinosta kaivuumielessä korostuvissa puhtausvaatimuksissa enää edes USA:ta joka Westinhousen lahjoitti muutama vuosi sitten Japanille. Nyt tämä hylkiöfirma ei kelpaa kuin diktatuureille, kertoo alan tuotto-odotusten romahduksista hyvin uudisenergiapaineissa. Vaan uraanin hämärät diktatuurien ja mafioosojen lonkerot syövyttävät ydinalaa jo huikeasti alimpiin kasteihin. Kuten muistamme Kazakstan on diktatuurimaa ja maailman härskeimpiä uraanin toimittajamaita romahtavassa uraanin sotatuottobisneksissä. Aiemmin verkkopalvelussa Aurinkosähkö sopii yllättävän hyvin Suomeen [18.04.2008] » Lämmitys ja liikenne tulevat EU:n karsintalistalle [22.01.2008] » Energiaa häviää etenkin tuotannossa [08.04.2008] » Aiheesta Talentumin verkostossa Kiina ryhtyy hillitsemään teollisuutensa energiantuhlausta [02.05.2008] » Karmean energian törsäyksen loppu näkyy jo [24.04.2008] » Energiaa häviää etenkin tuotannossa [08.04.2008] » Energian kokonaiskulutus laski prosentin viime vuonna [20.03.2008] » Ilmastotaudin hoito ahdistaa päättäjää [08.02.2008] » Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Spaceman Guest Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:42 am    Post subject: Re: Tom Potter's comments on my animations. Spaceman wrote: Quote: hhc314@yahoo.com wrote: Hate to tell you this guy, but you beautiful illustration is seriously incorrect. It depicts a hard linkage between two wheels of differenct diameters that obviously would not rotate at the same rate. Harry, You know I am a good mechanic so I must tell you this. his "graphic" might be off a bit or it might be a perspective thing. (you know that further away wheel only "looks" smaller. anyway.. I can assure you a hard linkage like shown and connected at the correct radius point on each wheel, can make 2 different sized wheels roll at the same speed. ^^^^ Oh dang, I just realized I said that completely wrong. My "very" bad. I meant to say two different sized wheels with a hard linkage can rotate at the same revs.. but of course you could not get them to "roll" at the same rate.. My bad.. anyways.. The picture shown only has a perspective problem, not a rolling problem. Sorry about the "stupid response extra" part Harry. I must be too tired At least I caught it before I fell asleep completely. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Juan R." González-Álvarez Guest Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:39 am    Post subject: Re: new USENET guidelines (was: massless or massive photon?) Peter M. Brown wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:47:58 -0400: Peter M. Brown wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:47:58 -0400: Quote: "Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" <juanREMOVE@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message news:pan.2008.07.15.08.30.00@canonicalscience.com... Cosmik de Bris wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:28:25 +1200: On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:13:49 +1200, Eric Gisse wrote (in article 425617bb-4b25-4c6d-9839-cb9b1c8ba116@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>): Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez wrote: [snip whatever] I'm not going through that giant whine fest. Eric, let Juan and Pete go, they don't contribute anything to this group and you have. You may be a little brash at times but I've learnt a lot from you. It's funny how Juan and Pete have dismissed and insulted the intelligence of the most knowledgeable people on this group and just dogmatically asserted their falsehoods with no proof. Put your time into those who want to learn. Cheers. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** Then welcome to the list of people who did learn from Eric the next nonsense (\blockquote No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2 ]. ) Juan - Why are you conversing with people like Cosmik de Bris, Eric and Dono. Each has proven that they are not worth conversing with? That's why I blocked each a while back. Pete Hi, Pete. Let me explain that. When I read nonsenses, insults, and other nasty messages from people like Bilge, Dono (then Karandash2), Eric, Tom... I prepared a group of guidelines http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html with recommendations. I know that the recommendation to ignore nasty comment is difficult to follow sometimes. Also the recommendations to ignore nasty posters didn't work as waited. It only worked for the more beginner trolls, who after a time being ignored not more reply you, but it didn't worked for trolls of poor species as Eric and Dono. Crackpot Dono has continued with lies, insults, and /ad hominems/ during more than a year probably believing he could say *anything* he want without waiting a reply from my part. Crackpot Eric has continued to invent mistakes in my posts in his usual pathetic style. When I ignored his insults, lies, and nonsenses in sci.physics.relativity then he followed me to sci.physics.foundations and sci.physics.research. To my surprise their posts passed moderation and were posted in sci.physics.foundations! I initially ignored Eric nonsense and /ad hominem/ on s.p.f but some people complained about Eric messages and his usual attacks on me, and then one discussion started in that moderated newsgroup this year, with one moderator calling attention to "Mr. Gisse" in public: (\blockquote At this point I would just ask Mr. Gisse (and all) to please try to be more polite and diplomatic in their replies. ) Then was when I really considered the idea of changing the guidelines and react to the permanent attacks, lies, straw man, misreadings... The issue was how react to attacks, noticing the crackpots to novice readers, and still maintaining the noise to a minimum all at once? This is difficult but I think I have some ideas about that. I have discussed this off-line with other posters of moderated and non-moderated groups. For example Murray Arnow from sci.physics.research has provided me a guideline is now introduced in the new version. I am now preparing that new version of the USENET guidelines and will be updated in a few days. The new guidelines introduce new tactics to beat the trolls and the crackpots and unlike the previous version also introduce examples of nasty content. As promised before I introduce samples of nasty content from Tom Roberts, Eric, and Dono. For example the guidelines now include Eric above nonsense (\blockquote No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2 ]. ) and also his arrogant "Yea but I'm smarter than both of you. By such a wide margin it boggles the mind". Like example of the kind of nasty troll you can find on online discussion. Also as noticed here recently http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/brief-presentation-of- canonical-science.html a future Micro-thought will be "Some samples of USENET fauna" There I will cite many examples and links to nasty content. Crackpot Eric *mistakes* and obvious *nonsenses* (both plural). Crackpot Dono writing nonsense and next deleting his message from Groups and then starting a lie about all that without noticing that his nonsense even after deleted from Groups is still archived in other servers http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/ msg00824.html Daryl 'bad faith' and mistakes... Tom Roberts perennial straw man and lies... -- Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) http://canonicalscience.org Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor galathaea Guest Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:50 pm    Post subject: Re: new USENET guidelines (was: massless or massive photon?) On Jul 16, 4:39 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: Quote: Peter M. Brown wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:47:58 -0400: Peter M. Brown wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:47:58 -0400: "Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in messagenews:pan.2008.07.15.08.30.00@canonicalscience.com... Cosmik de Bris wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:28:25 +1200: On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:13:49 +1200, Eric Gisse wrote (in article 425617bb-4b25-4c6d-9839-cb9b1c8ba...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>): Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez wrote: [snip whatever] I'm not going through that giant whine fest. Eric, let Juan and Pete go, they don't contribute anything to this group and you have. You may be a little brash at times but I've learnt a lot from you. It's funny how Juan and Pete have dismissed and insulted the intelligence of the most knowledgeable people on this group and just dogmatically asserted their falsehoods with no proof. Put your time into those who want to learn. Cheers. ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com** Then welcome to the list of people who did learn from Eric the next nonsense (\blockquote No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2 ]. ) Juan - Why are you conversing with people like Cosmik de Bris, Eric and Dono. Each has proven that they are not worth conversing with? That's why I blocked each a while back. Pete Hi, Pete. Let me explain that. When I read nonsenses, insults, and other nasty messages from people like Bilge, Dono (then Karandash2), Eric, Tom... I prepared a group of guidelines http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html with recommendations. I know that the recommendation to ignore nasty comment is difficult to follow sometimes. Also the recommendations to ignore nasty posters didn't work as waited. It only worked for the more beginner trolls, who after a time being ignored not more reply you, but it didn't worked for trolls of poor species as Eric and Dono. Crackpot Dono has continued with lies, insults, and /ad hominems/ during more than a year probably believing he could say *anything* he want without waiting a reply from my part. Crackpot Eric has continued to invent mistakes in my posts in his usual pathetic style. When I ignored his insults, lies, and nonsenses in sci.physics.relativity then he followed me to sci.physics.foundations and sci.physics.research. To my surprise their posts passed moderation and were posted in sci.physics.foundations! I initially ignored Eric nonsense and /ad hominem/ on s.p.f but some people complained about Eric messages and his usual attacks on me, and then one discussion started in that moderated newsgroup this year, with one moderator calling attention to "Mr. Gisse" in public: (\blockquote At this point I would just ask Mr. Gisse (and all) to please try to be more polite and diplomatic in their replies. ) Then was when I really considered the idea of changing the guidelines and react to the permanent attacks, lies, straw man, misreadings... The issue was how react to attacks, noticing the crackpots to novice readers, and still maintaining the noise to a minimum all at once? This is difficult but I think I have some ideas about that. I have discussed this off-line with other posters of moderated and non-moderated groups. For example Murray Arnow from sci.physics.research has provided me a guideline is now introduced in the new version. I am now preparing that new version of the USENET guidelines and will be updated in a few days. The new guidelines introduce new tactics to beat the trolls and the crackpots and unlike the previous version also introduce examples of nasty content. As promised before I introduce samples of nasty content from Tom Roberts, Eric, and Dono. For example the guidelines now include Eric above nonsense (\blockquote No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2 ]. ) and also his arrogant "Yea but I'm smarter than both of you. By such a wide margin it boggles the mind". Like example of the kind of nasty troll you can find on online discussion.. Also as noticed here recently http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/brief-presentation-of- canonical-science.html a future Micro-thought will be "Some samples of USENET fauna" There I will cite many examples and links to nasty content. Crackpot Eric *mistakes* and obvious *nonsenses* (both plural). Crackpot Dono writing nonsense and next deleting his message from Groups and then starting a lie about all that without noticing that his nonsense even after deleted from Groups is still archived in other servers http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/ msg00824.html Daryl 'bad faith' and mistakes... Tom Roberts perennial straw man and lies... juan please don't waste your time on these guys really they are losers they have always been losers and they know it too so they try desperately to be "better" than others thinking that's what will make them not-losers and they grasp onto any certainty they can find this is what attracts them to physics because they think if they remember enough "truths" that they find in books they think are authoritative they will know more than others and can then demean them and feel good about themselves and they fail at even that mistaking "currently well-accepted models" as truth and regularly falling for the same fundamentalism that they will happily attack others for just move on most intelligent readers will enjoy your posts which regularly show earnest appreciation for exploration and a well-rounded knowledge of the literature i know it can seem unfair when only the bigots post responses to you and no one steps in and says "hey, but he's right about x, y, and z" but that is a burden of time many don't want even if they think it while reading if you'd like some cheering up possibly you'd enjoy a thread with bilge and i dating all the way back to 2003 my involvement started with a post on bohmian mechanics correcting some of bilge's (pop-physics) misunderstandings on the nature of quantum theory http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/7164ddd0fa54d2bf it quickly devolved as bilge began to hold onto certain wrong arguments a bit uncomfortably long even for him i suppose http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/26b76d1a85a31a4b and then his argument suddenly switched once he realised even his source believed the points i was making fortunately his quick searches of the internet turned up another flawed argument for him to hold onto he started snipping out his old errors and i so renamed the thread and switched the name so i could summarise the thread so far and present references which i had hoped would satisfy him http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/7e364f47559e66cc unfortunately as i am sure you have found out quite well by now bilge doesn't read references at least not when he is trying to maintain his fundamentalising avoidance obsessions unable to understand the math he quickly moved to questioning the dates of the arguments http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/680c5f535b083354 eventually i have to hold his hand on the arguments http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/b77f79bc5129f1e1 and then the thread devolves into bilge creating new arguments and abandoning quickly bilge snipping any real math or derivations and all the while to the bitter end bilge is still fully convinced he is right as you will see if you explore the thread i wasted a good month of usenet posting (actually a bit more) on this waste of space bilge has no shame neither does eric they will continue to be eric and bilge to the bitter end it may be frustrating to you because they do have "just enough" knowledge that it looks like they are earnestly interested in physics they are not their posting history makes it very clear what their drive really is they just want to be better than you you won't change that i won't change that let's not waste any _more_ of our time on them... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Jeffâ–²Relf Guest Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:04 am    Post subject: Tom Roberts, Eric Gisse and Uncle Al. I don't know much about Tom Roberts, I've never really engaged him; I read him when he cross-posts to Sci.Physics, which isn't often. So, at least for now, I find he's worth reading but not very engaging. Eric Gisse and Uncle Al heckle me once in awhile .. no big deal, I reply back and that's basically where it ends. Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         Chemistry Talk Forum Index -> Chemistry Talk All times are GMT Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 905, 906, 907, 908  Next Page 906 of 908   Jump to: Select a forum Chemistry Talk----------------Chemistry Talk  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Australian Debt Consolidation Experts medical insurance Wedding Invitation Escort e accompagnatrice in Rimini, Reggio Emilia, in Riviera Adriatica, in Modena... UK Swingers Genuine Contacts Site Webmaster talk mortgage quotations Make Your Own Website Free phone calls to Poland Long island Cleaning service toxic mold UK Swingers Genuine Contacts Site Janitorial Supplies Eureka Vacuum Parts 92 Attacks blocked Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group