Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #555469
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods |
| Date | 2016-02-22 08:29 -0600 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <naf5vs$hrf$4@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (12 earlier) <It5xy.107086$yJ4.70224@fx44.iad> <na2plj$o39$1@gioia.aioe.org> <R28xy.3009$NW.2514@fx05.iad> <na4gto$1fo3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <dklxy.36395$NG6.30263@fx16.iad> |
On 2/18/2016 9:21 AM, benj wrote: > On 02/18/2016 08:28 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/17/2016 6:15 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 02/17/2016 04:45 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/17/2016 3:19 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 02/17/2016 10:00 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 2/17/2016 12:27 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Heck no. I never said that. What I did say is that there is a >>>>>>>>>> role >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> moderated publications. Moderation and editorial control is not >>>>>>>>>> censorship. Also, your being free to pursue whatever you want >>>>>>>>>> does >>>>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>>>> translate into your being able to command any audience you want. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is a group of people who do not want to read articles about >>>>>>>>>> fringe >>>>>>>>>> science, which BY DEFINITION, you have an interest in. And just >>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>> YOU are interested in it, doesn't mean that you get to put >>>>>>>>>> results in >>>>>>>>>> front of their eyeballs. Capiche? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't know what YOU call that but most of us here call that >>>>>>>>> censorhip! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, Ben, that's not censorship. Not even close to censorship. >>>>>>>> So when you say "most of us here", are you counting all your >>>>>>>> personalities? Who else here (and I'm willing to count the names >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>> list to see if they actually constitute "most of us here") would >>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>> moderation and editorial control to be the same as censorship? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Words, words, words! You "won" this debate yet? Just keep making up >>>>>>> stories of what you think words mean and you will! >>>>>> >>>>>> Not making up a thing, Ben. If anyone is making stuff up, it's you. >>>>>> This isn't a difference of opinion between you and me. It's a >>>>>> difference >>>>>> of opinion between you and the world. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+editing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+selection >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+gatekeeping >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+control >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Right. "Gatekeeping" isn't censorship. Sure. An editor can't spike any >>>>> paper he/she feels is "forbidden"? Just who are you trying to fool >>>>> with >>>>> your Polyanna view of real life? >>>>> >>>>> You in on the "experiment" with HVAC to see just how stooopid >>>>> people on >>>>> Usenet (this group) are? >>>> >>>> All I'm pointing out to you, Ben, is that YOU PERSONALLY believe that >>>> editing is the same as censorship. YOU PERSONALLY believe that >>>> gatekeeping is the same as censorship. But you are pretty much ALONE in >>>> those beliefs, as the links above show. >>>> >>>> So just recognize that most other people do not feel the way you do. >>>> >>>> This is not a one-on-one difference of opinion. >>> >>> Sorry, but you are the one alone here. Obviously there is editing. There >>> is gatekeeping. But when you have control of publication then it's all >>> about how you use it. Correcting spelling and grammar are one thing. >> >> That's not what editors do. Good grief. > > Well, if you assure us all of that then it certainly MUST be true > because someone of your learning and experience is never wrong! Not me, Ben. ANYBODY else other than yourself. Just learn to consult people OTHER THAN YOURSELF about things like what editors do. Like editors. The problem, Ben, is that you only consult yourself about what is true. That's the insanity. > >> I encourage you to write an article about cooking and submit it to >> Popular Mechanics, and then when they 86 your submission, be sure to >> complain to the editor that his job is correcting spelling and grammar, >> not to exclude all articles about cooking from his publication. > > Gosh you get dense when you are on the debating team! You, yourself have > verified that I'm a published author and have submitted articles (and > got paid for them) So I know the difference between editing and censorship. Except that you've mistaken a lot of what editors do as part of their jobs with censorship. You apparently think editing is correcting grammar and spelling. > >> You're an idiot, Ben, not to mention insane. > > Why is it that the only argument you libs can come up with in a debate > is that your opponent is an "idiot", "moron" and "insane"? That is so > incompetent and shows you have nothing substantial to say. > Sorry, Ben, but your behavior that YOU know what editing should entail, regardless of what editors say about it, and that YOU know whether life origin science is really science, regardless what scientists say about it, is plainly insane. > >>> Stripping all "forbidden" topics is another. Publisher and editor (who >>> are paid by publishers) spiking is no fantasy and you know it. Save your >>> debating word games for "explaining" QM. You are just being irrational >>> again. > > AGAIN! > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-12 17:10 -0800
Kepler's orbital constaints noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 19:25 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-12 20:35 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 22:55 +0100
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-15 16:32 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 16:35 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-15 16:45 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 08:16 +0100
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-16 00:39 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 02:16 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 07:44 -0600
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:45 -0500
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:53 -0600
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-16 11:04 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 22:56 -0600
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-17 17:22 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:02 -0600
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-18 16:12 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:51 +0100
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-18 22:10 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 07:30 +0100
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 09:42 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-13 16:18 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 15:45 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2016-02-13 17:45 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-13 19:24 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 19:09 +0100
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-14 17:44 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 19:50 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 07:16 +0100
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 08:30 +0100
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-15 16:21 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 08:20 +0100
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 04:28 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-16 05:19 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:16 -0500
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 10:30 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:55 -0500
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:58 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 16:21 -0500
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 23:05 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 01:27 -0500
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:00 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 16:19 -0500
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 15:45 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 19:15 -0500
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 07:28 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:21 -0500
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 08:29 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-16 11:01 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 13:30 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-18 13:34 +1100
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-17 19:19 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-18 15:04 +1100
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-17 20:51 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-18 16:57 +1100
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 07:33 +0100
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:07 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-18 16:16 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 07:27 +0100
csiph-web