| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pmb
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:18 am Post subject: Re: new USENET guidelines (was: massless or massive photon?) |
 |
|
"galathaea" <galathaea@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a54075c-8dd1-4f05-af4f-cf5395148e10@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
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
|
<snip>.
All very true and good advice
Pete |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:23 am Post subject: Re: new USENET guidelines (was: massless or massive photon?) |
|
|
galathaea wrote on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:50:39 -0700:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 4:39 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
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
|
Good advice. Please note I don't more waste time on these guys.
But I will be warning readers. Many experienced readers have kill-filled
them (Dono was also banned to post in the groups when was Karandash2,
Bilge fortunately disappeared from the scene...).
Still novice readers may be confused. See Cosmik post above, he is
completely confused and did not noticed Eric 6 or 7 nonsenses about
Lagrangians, Hamiltonians, momenta, Energy, etc.
I will not waste time with them, arguing or replying nonsenses. But I
will notice ad hominems, lies, crackpots, trolls, red-herrings, straw man
arguments, etc.
Several people has acknowledged the effort to prepare the guidelines.
| Quote: |
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
|
Maybe, but they have an irresistible tendency to reply almost anything I
write. I tried to ignore them, kill-filling but they continue to pursue
ad hominems, straw man, lies...
As reported above, when I ignored nonsenses by Eric he just jumped to
sci.physics.foundations and started to write nonsenses and ad hominems
there before being warned by readers and one moderator.
Guidelines may help to understand people who they are and what are usual
tactics. For instance once a reader asked me if I had received ratings in
Google Groups from crackpots or from others. I think it is a good thing
to explain how Dono (before Karandash2) has tried to falsify my ratings
during years. I think is good to notice how was he caught in public by
administrators and then their false ratings deleted from the Google
Groups archive.
This is all documented in new guidelines and also in the next Micro-
thoughts. Both in preparation.
| Quote: |
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
|
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:46 am Post subject: Re: Tom Roberts, Eric Gisse and Uncle Al. |
|
|
Jeff▲Relf wrote on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:04:18 +0000:
| Quote: |
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.
|
Tom Roberts ignorance has been noticed in sci.physics.research before.
Also he often criticize theories are contrary to his picture of Nature
and own research agenda. This would seem acceptable except because Tom
criticize those theories *without studying them first*.
This is documented in the new guidelines, with Tom recognizing never
studied theory X and the next day doing a large series of wrong claims
about the theory X. Tom was pretending to show X experimentally invalid.
Tom got all wrong (and lying) because he never studied X.
Also another usual tactics from Tom include divert/confound readers with
his usual /ad hominem/, lies, and straw man arguments.
I reference one lie Tom did recently. He accused me from saying something
I never said. I corrected him twice. That is, I said Tom: I am not saying
that. But he continued to claim in public that I was wrong because I was
saying that. He pursued that lie and other straw man because lacking
better arguments about certain published recent paper he completely
dislikes because breaks his old picture of Nature.
I include the full quotations and the links (and will include
downloadable off-line copies also I readers demand for that) in future
USENET guidelines and Micro-thoughts on science, including advices and
recommendations to deal with these nasty posters.
| Quote: |
Eric Gisse and Uncle Al heckle me once in awhile .. no big deal, I reply
back and that's basically where it ends.
|
Not my case. When I ignored Eric, he followed me to other moderated
groups as sci.physics.foundations where he continued his nonsensical
posts and ad hominems. Several readers complained and one moderator said:
(\blockquote
At this point I would just ask Mr. Gisse (and all) to please try to be
more polite and diplomatic in their replies.
)
The fact, he would not stop from liyng and attacking me and the fact,
sometimes their posts would pass moderation, was something I did me to
reconsider the current guidelines (where I recommend to ignore nasty
posters)
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
In new guidelines (now under preparation) I recommend to ignore some
nasty posters but not /any/ nasty poster.
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:14 pm Post subject: Re: new USENET guidelines (was: massless or massive photon?) |
|
|
Albertito wrote on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:07:14 -0700:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 12:39 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
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...
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) http://canonicalscience.org
Hi Juan,
Don't forget to include in your guidelines how the troll Dono does
thousands of fake rates to posts, exploiting that feature from google
groups,
:-)
|
Of course!
This happened many time ago but Dono has continued for years to try to
falsify my ratings. Now it seems Dono did learn the lesson that fake
votes are deleted, and now Dono just add one negative vote to each
message I post. He also add a negative vote to any poster who shows some
sympathy by me. For example Dono rated negatively the
sci.physics.foundations moderator that warned Eric unpolite language.
Recently Dono became a more nasty troll, and now I will include those
fake rates and other dishonest tactics he uses, because I am sure Dono
may be using that also against other posters he dislike.
I will include how Dono added me more than hundred of negative votes in a
pair of days; how added many positive votes to his friend Eric; how
administrator from Groups caught both noticing to poor Eric that nobody
*real* was voting for him  ; how the false ratings were eliminated; how
Dono then started to vote against the administrator; and the
administrator laughed about that etc.
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:26 pm Post subject: Re: snipped new flame by crackpot Dono |
|
|
Dono wrote on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:40:08 -0700:
(...)
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:08 pm Post subject: Re: new USENET guidelines (was: massless or massive photon?) |
|
|
Pmb wrote on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:17:13 -0400:
| Quote: |
There was a time when I used to respond to all the nonsense posts by
people like Tom Roberts, David Waite, Androcles etc.
|
I also when I was a novice on USENET!
| Quote: |
But a time came
(i.e. I had a staphy infection which once again threatened my life -> I
became a Christian) to a point where I realized that it just wasn't the
way I wanted to behave. Plus it stressing me out having to deal with the
constant streams of flames and ignorant comments. So I stopped wasting
my time. It takes a few days to notice who the new ones are, or to
remember who I have forgotten are flamers. Thus my recent blocking of
Dono, Oh no, and Eric Gisse. They're too irritating to bother with.
|
Yes, I also recommended to ignore nasty posters in the previous version
of USENET guidelines
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
and that worked rather fine but still novices showed puzzled by some
convincing lies of trolls and flamers. Often for discovering a lie you
need to read a whole thread with care.
Now I recommend to ignore trolls but I also recommend don't ignore any
poster's troll. In the end I only suggest recommendations, anyone can
adapt and/or modify them to her/his own experience, preferences, etc.
If you prefer to kill-fill them, that is also a fine option.
The new guidelines will be updated to the server the next week.
| Quote: |
E.g. I was explaining something about how to view relativistic mass as
an invariant quantity, i.e. the scalar product of the particle's
4-momentum with the observer's 4-velocity. The thread was called
"Comment on "definition".
|
I found it. It is a very 'old' thread. Then I was not using USENET and I
doubt I then knew its existence :-)
It was my lack of experience, which did I caught in almost any tramp they
used against me. But well, now I have some experience to assist other
people to not repeat the same mistakes we did!
| Quote: |
If you find and read that thread you'l have a solid example of Tom
Roberts (TR) horrible personality quirk, i.e. he could care less on what
you're trying to say and whines about what you posted, ignoring possible
errors that might have been made in posting when you find them and point
them out. E.g. I made the mistake of writing "U = 4-velocity of
particle " when I meant to write "U = 4-velocity of observer". Tom
Synder was kind enough to point my error out to me (without being
condescening as TR usually is). Did Tom stop there? Nope. Not at all.
He ignored my correction and kept whinning as if I never corrected
myself. Oy! Typical Tom Roberts behaviour. I believe that this is what a
"straw man" arguement is? The others are much worse. At least Tom knows
the basics, although not as well as he should know them.
|
I can see. He likes straw man and obvious misreadings. The example I
choose for illustrate his usual straw mans and lies is as follow.
Tom dislikes a recent paper by C&V on electromagnetism. Authors use two
different R functions with different derivatives. The nature of the two
functions is somewhat hide in their paper. They simply noticed but did
not advanced in a microscopic quantum understanding of why there is *two*
functions R with *two* derivatives.
In my fundamental work now under revision by several expertises I show,
using quantum theory, why there is *two* different functions R at the
classical level and why their respective derivatives at t0 are different,
just as C&V found at classical level but they did in some
phenomenological way.
This was Tom Roberts troll reply:
(\blockquote [Tom]
You are in your own fantasy world. C&V are discussing CLASSICAL
ELECTRODYNAMICS (just look at their title). There are no "quantum
fields" anywhere in their paper. NOT ANYWHERE -- No wonder you are so
confused! You must read what they ACTUALLY WRITE, not what you want to
believe, or what you fantasize you have established in your "research".
)
One member of C&V research team is actually revising my paper and
commenting it with them!
And he has already showed surprise and agreement on my findings and we
are since several months ago in contact about this.
My work generalizes and correct some minor nuisances on their
revolutionary work on electrodynamical dualism published in top journals
of physics (Physical Review, Modern Physics...) in recent years. E.g. my
work includes an extension of their dualism also to gravitational
interactions.
Of course, Tom Roberts is an ignorant on those issues and, unlike the
above authors, Tom has published nothing.
We have, at the one hand, an experienced researcher with multiple papers
in top journals, who is reading and revising my paper and considers it to
be a good paper, very revolutionary! And, at the other hand, the flamer
Tom Roberts, a well-known ignorant, with zero publications about the
topic and who did *not* read my research paper before criticizing it!
Of course, I never said there were quantum fields in the C&V paper. That
was Tom Roberts straw man. I just said that a quantum theory model
*explains* C&V findings at the classical level.
My reply to Tom Roberts lie was:
(\blockquote [Juan]
This *straw man* argument from you will be cited in the guidelines as
sample.
1) I said *not* that their paper was about quantum fields. It is obvious
for anyone it is about classical electrodynamics. Don't lie Tom.
2) I have *said* that they offered no explanation on why there is two
functions R each one with a different dR/dt0. This is explained using
quantum fields. Function (37) correspond to one quantum field and
(3 corresponds to another field. Don't lie Tom.
3) In the classical limit of the quantum theory one obtains the two
functions R with the classical derivatives dR/dt0 they gave in their
paper. Don't lie Tom.
(...)
)
I wrote above explanation last Sunday. Well, Tom read it and the Monday
again used the *same* straw man and the *same* lie about me.
(\blockquote [Tom]
Don't obfuscate about how there are "two functions |R|" -- that is YOUR
fantasy not present in their paper (just like you fantasize there are
"quantum fields" in their paper).
)
Since Tom Roberts lacks any argument against those modern research
findings he will be using that class of straw man argument and lies
forever.
I have decided to ignore him, but will notice Tom as example of academic
liar and flamer. This may help other people.
| Quote: |
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.
Yeah, I know. Some people can't stop flamming for some reason.
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.
As you know I've recently seen an example of that, i.e. his changing of
what is recorded in google. Have you reported this to google yet? He
could get into very serious trouble for this. He'd deserve everything he
got too. In fact I think I'll E-mail Google now on this point. So
whatever Dono says must be assumed to be a lie unless one already knows
differently.
|
Dono already was banned before when he tried to falsify Groups ratings.
He then changed the nick from Karandash2 to Dono. If Dono were to be
banned now, he would change the nick and start again in a future.
About Dono recent attempt to falsify the archived posts, I don't see a
serious problem here. Yes, Dono deleted his nonsensical posts when we
noticed the nonsense that the crackpot was writing and, yes, then Dono
tried to lie about that, but Dono nonsensical messages are archived in
several places still. For example
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/
msg/6db93e88919413fe?dmode=source
Dono cannot delete my message containing a copy of his nonsensical post.
And Dono cannot delete the message stored on sci.tech-archive.
Readers can also read off-line Dono nonsensical posts in their respective
newsreaders.
One can also download a pdf copy of Dono nonsensical post from sci.tech-
archive and then understand that the crackpot has no idea of physics and
still insult others.
| Quote: |
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!
IT was probably Oh no's fault. He has proven to be an idiot/flamer. You
should contact the moderators and complain when that happens.
|
Yes, that is one of recommendations in the new guidelines. I have writen
them in next terms
(\blockquote [excerpt from new USENET guidelines]
If abuse has happened in a moderated newsgroup then call the attention
of moderators by pointing to the message, the author, and the offensive
and/or unfair content. Moderators are the first ones interested in
polite and on-topic discussions, because that is their responsibility.
Sometimes some moderator may be promoting the nasty poster against you.
This means that your ideas are been perceived as dangerous enough by
that moderator; it also means that she/he lacks better arguments against
you. Both are a good notice, are not? The bad notice may be that is its
her/his sandbox and she/he sets the rules. You may abandon the
newsgroup, complaint about the board of moderators, or just ignoring
that moderator.
)
Several people has protested me about *that* moderator. I have counted
four persons (five if counting myself ). If more people found problems
with him then all of us would submit a formal plea to moderator board of
s.p.f for a revision of "Oh no" (Charles Francis).
Actually I simply ignore Charles flames and nonsensical posts. Notice he
replies to almost any post I submit to s.p.f. He looks as Eric.
"Oh No" (Charles Francis) has a webpage in his own irrelevant 'theory'
already was revised in sci.physics.research in next terms
"It is confused throughout, often factually inaccurate, and misses too
many essential points to enumerate here."
--- drlunsford to charles francis in sci.physics.research Feb 2008
| Quote: |
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.
You have to find people who really know physics. That's rather difficult
and takes time. But when people start flaming its easy to see whether
they know physics that well or not. When flaming people tend to make
serious errors, some times on purpose in order to avoid admitting their
mistakes. Eric did that when he refused to either shut up or admit his
mistakke of thinking that L = T - V holds in relativity (T = kinetic
energy and V = potential energy) for the non-covariant Lagrangian.
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.
It would be wise to mention Tom Roberts famous ploy of ignoring
clarifications and corrections in order to suit his needs to be
condescending. You should note how condescending comments are used. Tom
is famous for that.
|
Yes, Tom is noticed for that. He is also noticed by recognizing he did
not take time to study certain theory (one he dislikes much) and next
claiming the theory to be invalid (with arguments completely false)!
Tom likes to criticize theories without studying it first, somewhat as he
critics my papers without reading them!
Of course, his bizarre unscientific behavior deserves a honor place in
the guidelines :-)
| Quote: |
and also his arrogant "Yea but I'm smarter than both of you. By such a
wide margin it boggles the mind".
Heh heh! I got a good laugh out of that.
|
I said Eric many times he would change his bizarre attitude and also
warned him that their insults and lies would be used in the guidelines if
he did not rectified... But Eric continues insulting and already said in
public he "don't care about the guidelines".
Therefore, more people will laugh when reading his "I'm smarter.." :-)
| Quote: |
Eric has a poor understanding
of relativity as evidenced by his total lack of commenting on the
counter examples provided where the "mass = proper mass" fails to work.
Have you noticed that? Eric refuses to respond to those in hopes that
people won't notice that he's clueless in those areas, i.e. has a lack
of understanding on the most general situations in relativity.
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
Both are very true. Sad specimens are they indeed! (Do you know who used
the term "sad specimen" when referring to his college professor? )
|
Einstein?
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: Re: Tom Roberts, Eric Gisse and Uncle Al. |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:28:57 -0500:
(sniped a new lie by Tom)
| Quote: |
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
Tom Roberts ignorance has been noticed in sci.physics.research before.
Only by Juan R. González-Álvarez
|
Don't true. For instance, in sci.physics.research someone said this year:
"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts."
--- X to Tom Roberts in sci.physics.research Feb 2008
And X was *not* Juan R. You know that very well because you replied to
*that poster* several times in hungry tone. You are lying again Tom.
(sniped another lie by Tom)
| Quote: |
Also he often criticize theories are contrary to his picture of Nature
and own research agenda. This would seem acceptable except because Tom
criticize those theories *without studying them first*.
This is plain not true.
|
You are lying again because this is also documented.
| Quote: |
This is documented in the new guidelines, with Tom recognizing never
studied theory X and the next day doing a large series of wrong claims
about the theory X. Tom was pretending to show X experimentally
invalid. Tom got all wrong (and lying) because he never studied X.
If you mean Chubykalo and Vlaev's paper,
|
(...)
No, I don't mean that paper. You are lying again.
| Quote: |
I reference one lie Tom did recently. [...]
This is also not true. Doubly so: not only did I not lie, but YOU DO NOT
"REFERENCE" ANYTHING HERE.
|
That is your new misreading and/or straw man.
The full quotes and links will be provided in the places cited. Do you
think that becoming more aggressive and writing in CAPS you will impede
me from publishing your bizarre quotes and links to your messages?
(...)
| Quote: |
Note, please, that Juan R. González-Álvarez is engaging in deceptive
practices -- he is not giving any specifics and is only slinging
innuendo and insults. He is violating his own "guidelines", and is
engaging in the ad hominem arguments he accuses me of (what he calls "ad
hominem" arguments by me are merely my requests to him to display an
error in my discussion of HIS mistake).
|
You continue to lie, trying to confound readers who don't followed the
discussion on C&V paper.
| Quote: |
When you act like a crank, do not be surprised when other people treat
you like one.
|
Then why do you react this violently when you will be cited as sample of
USENET academic flamer and crackpot, including quotes and links to your
notorious bizarre behavior?
| Quote: |
[I probably won't respond further -- there's no point.
|
I don't trusts this. As Eric you cannot resist on commenting on other
posters showing you wrong.
| Quote: |
Any competent person who studies the record will know who is
|
"Any competent person..."
In the guidelines, I cite an /ad hominem/ from you to another poster
where you explained him that *anyone* (past, present, or future)
disagreeing with you was an idiot.
| Quote: |
wrong and
who is right. Note also that I am in VERY good company here:
Juan also
accuses J.D. Jackson of being "ignorant" about classical
electrodynamics (!), because we both pointed out mistakes in
C&V's
paper).]
|
But as showed in the C&V thread, both of you did the same misreadings and
mistakes. There is one difference between Jackson and you. Jackson had
not access to C&V reply because was posterior
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205041v1
and after that Jackson has *not* submitted more criticisms to C&V.
Indeed, Jackson has stopped from submitting any new comment or criticism
in any recent paper by them in electrodynamics. recently the authorsd
have published experimental papers on apparent falsification of
electrodynamics but Jackson did not reply.
Unlike Jackson (who has showed capacity to learn from his own mistakes)
you had access to note
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205041v1
by the authors and still you decided to make the same fake accusations on
the authors' work. I have corrected your multiple mistakes and
misreadings before.
Remember also that you accused C&V in your usual ad hominem style. For
example, abusing of the fact they are not participating in USENET
newsgroup and would not read your comments, you named the above preprint
"their 6-year old response".
| Quote: |
NOTE: discussions about C&V's paper belong in that thread in
sci.physics.relativity, not this one. I mention it only to demonstrate
that Juan is not being honest here; unlike him I give specifics.
|
You are just lying again, trying to confound readers.
As noticed before the quotations and the links will be available in the
guidelines and the micro-thought.
Of course, I wait more lies from you Tom.
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: Re: Tom Roberts, Eric Gisse and Uncle Al. |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:28:57 -0500:
(sniped several lies)
| Quote: |
I reference one lie Tom did recently. [...]
This is also not true. Doubly so: not only did I not lie, but YOU DO NOT
"REFERENCE" ANYTHING HERE.
|
When replying your new lie I did not notice that you just truncated my
message in the right place to confound/divert readers.
My apologies by not noticing this tactic from Tom!
My non-truncated message was
(\blockquote
I reference one lie Tom did recently. He accused me from saying
something I never said. I corrected him twice. That is, I said Tom: I am
not saying that. But he continued to claim in public that I was wrong
because I was saying that. He pursued that lie and other straw man
because lacking better arguments about certain published recent paper he
completely dislikes because breaks his old picture of Nature.
I include the full quotations and the links (and will include
downloadable off-line copies also I readers demand for that) in future
USENET guidelines and Micro-thoughts on science, including advices and
recommendations to deal with these nasty posters.
)
Which explains *where* Tom full quotations and links to his bizarre
messages *will be available*.
(sniped several lies and ad hominems)
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
David Bostwick
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: Re: new lie by Dono |
|
|
In article <pan.2008.07.17.14.13.06@canonicalscience.com>, "Juan R." =?iso-8859-1?q?Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez?=
<juanREMOVE@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
OK, kiddies, take your feud to e-mail. The rest of us don't give a rip. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Tom Roberts
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:28 pm Post subject: Re: Tom Roberts, Eric Gisse and Uncle Al. |
|
|
[Normally I don't engage in "he said / he said" arguments. But when you
directly insult me I occasionally stoop to your level. Note that Juan R.
González-Álvarez is being deceptive here, and is engaging in the ad
hominem attacks he accuses me of.]
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
| Quote: |
Tom Roberts ignorance has been noticed in sci.physics.research before.
|
Only by Juan R. González-Álvarez, and only if one assumes that he never
makes any mistake himself. Note that he has been unable to refute my
discussions of the mistakes made by himself and by Chubykalo and Vlaev
(more below), and this is the "ignorance" he claims of me.
| Quote: |
Also he often criticize theories are contrary to his picture of Nature
and own research agenda. This would seem acceptable except because Tom
criticize those theories *without studying them first*.
|
This is plain not true.
| Quote: |
This is documented in the new guidelines, with Tom recognizing never
studied theory X and the next day doing a large series of wrong claims
about the theory X. Tom was pretending to show X experimentally invalid.
Tom got all wrong (and lying) because he never studied X.
|
If you mean Chubykalo and Vlaev's paper, it is YOU who are wrong (and
them), not me. Unless you can refute my arguments -- so far you have not
even attempted to do so, preferring instead to repeatedly claim that I
do not understand their paper. YOU are wrong, and YOU do not understand
their mistake (which I displayed several times, and to which you have
yet to respond substantively).
| Quote: |
I reference one lie Tom did recently. [...]
|
This is also not true. Doubly so: not only did I not lie, but YOU DO NOT
"REFERENCE" ANYTHING HERE.
Note, please, that Juan R. González-Álvarez is engaging in deceptive
practices -- he is not giving any specifics and is only slinging
innuendo and insults. He is violating his own "guidelines", and is
engaging in the ad hominem arguments he accuses me of (what he calls "ad
hominem" arguments by me are merely my requests to him to display an
error in my discussion of HIS mistake).
When you act like a crank, do not be surprised when other people treat
you like one.
[I probably won't respond further -- there's no point.
Any competent person who studies the record will know
who is wrong and who is right. Note also that I am in
VERY good company here: Juan also accuses J.D. Jackson
of being "ignorant" about classical electrodynamics (!),
because we both pointed out mistakes in C&V's paper).]
NOTE: discussions about C&V's paper belong in that thread in
sci.physics.relativity, not this one. I mention it only to demonstrate
that Juan is not being honest here; unlike him I give specifics.
Tom Roberts |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
hanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:56 pm Post subject: Re: new lie by Dono |
|
|
=== AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ======
| Quote: |
"David Bostwick" <david.bostwick@chemistry.gatech.edu |
wrote in message news:g5nllo$sfi$2@news-int2.gatech.edu...
| Quote: |
ahahahaha... Einstein Dingleberry Dono aka Karandash |
defended Einstein's sphincter, which cranked independent
"canonical" thinker and stinker, named....
| Quote: |
"Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" <juanREMOVE@canonicalscience.com |
who wrote:
Hey crackpot Dono where is your nonsensical post on Groups.
Why did you delete it?
Why you try to falsify the Groups archive? We can still read your
messages online and laugh
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/
msg/6db93e88919413fe?dmode=source
| Quote: |
"David Bostwick" wrote: |
OK, kiddies, take your feud to e-mail. The rest of us don't give a rip.
..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... Let'em vent, David. They are
funnier than any TV sit-com... ahahaha... Einstein's Dingleberry Dono
Dunno that he and the likes of him do effectively destroy Einstein's
crap with their religious fanaticism. The EDs are much more
destructive than any critic of Albert's shit (SR/GR) can ever be.
These Einstein Dingleberries worship in the warmth near Albert's
sphincter from where they hope to gain fame and wisdom by
ass-occiation... ahahahaha...
They just can't accept & much less admit that they live in a dream
world.
| Quote: |
I haven't read any of Juan's tripe because whenever I see |
someone titulating his own thinking with/by some grandiose name
like "canonical", it immediately indicates to me that it is nothing
more then just another variation of the tale of fantasy about how
they look at nature.... and talk themselves into the conviction that
only they are right... ahahhaha...
| Quote: |
Little thought is given by these lovely highly self-absorbed souls |
that only 5 honestly earned dollars will by them a cup of coffee,
but no amount of promoting, cajoling and hollering about their
theories will ever even let them have a single sip of coffee...
| Quote: |
But folks like Dono Dunno that and Juan Dunno that neither... |
But hey fellows, don't let me cramp your style... ahahahaha....
Carry on and thanks for the laughs... ahahaha.... ahahahanson
| Quote: |
BTW as can be seen in the real world, here is where |
Einstein's crap is still used and where they laugh about it:
= mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
= *.edu and grantology ...................."does use REL, No shit"
= Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
= Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
| Quote: |
and Dunno Dono, the Karandass, is of course a member of the |
ilk in the last class above which is seen and underlined by him
behaving like his bro-in-ilk does here:
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O9W3UsdRyM >
or in < http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1842edc4f >
ahahahaha... ahahahaha... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Uncle Al
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject: Re: Tom Roberts, Eric Gisse and Uncle Al. |
|
|
Jeff?Relf wrote:
| Quote: |
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.
|
"Heckle" you fucking imbecile shit megaspewer? HECKLE? Jeff?Relf is
a hot swollen pus-filled carbuncle upon humanity's ass.
The greatest obstacle to understanding reality is not ignorance but
the illusion of knowledge. Reality is not a peer vote.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
