Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #544496 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-11 10:41 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-13 10:16 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 108 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Newsgroup censorship Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-11 10:41 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 12:55 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-11 11:16 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 13:43 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 17:04 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-11 16:29 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 15:54 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 02:48 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 06:06 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 07:12 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 14:16 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 23:27 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 10:20 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 10:25 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 10:30 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 05:58 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-12 16:14 +0000
Re: Newsgroup censorship "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 07:36 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-11 19:27 +0000
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 15:21 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 17:22 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 17:41 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-11 17:11 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:55 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 13:42 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-11 22:22 +0000
Re: Newsgroup censorship Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-11 16:34 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 14:57 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 20:45 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 20:34 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 22:01 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 07:59 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 14:26 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 14:11 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 17:58 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 17:07 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 00:22 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 08:01 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 14:51 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-12 00:32 +0000
Re: Newsgroup censorship James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:00 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-12 02:16 +0000
Re: Newsgroup censorship James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:12 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:34 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-12 06:19 +0000
Re: Newsgroup censorship James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 23:10 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-12 18:35 +0000
Re: Newsgroup censorship James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 11:05 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-12 03:39 +0000
Re: Newsgroup censorship "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 23:06 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 23:28 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-12 14:33 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 22:17 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-12 03:41 +0000
Re: Newsgroup censorship Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-11 17:07 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:47 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 21:53 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 07:57 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 14:21 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 14:05 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 12:12 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 14:32 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 18:04 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 17:09 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 00:24 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 08:03 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 17:55 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 17:04 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 00:21 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-11 20:16 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 09:33 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-11 21:02 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 09:37 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-12 16:04 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 16:17 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 07:43 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 07:48 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 17:51 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 14:19 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:13 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 20:37 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-11 19:27 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 17:33 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 15:54 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 17:35 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-12 13:40 +1100
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 22:08 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-12 03:13 +0000
Re: Newsgroup censorship Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-11 20:56 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-12 22:21 +1100
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 09:34 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-11 22:00 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:40 +0000
Re: Newsgroup censorship Catherine Jefferson <spamtrap@spambouncer.org> - 2016-01-12 08:42 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 11:04 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 09:13 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 11:26 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 14:09 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 12:27 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 14:38 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 12:54 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 18:00 -0500
Re: Newsgroup censorship Rock Brentwood <federation2005@netzero.com> - 2016-01-12 17:28 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 20:23 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 07:54 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 09:58 -0800
Re: Newsgroup censorship Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 12:13 -0600
Re: Newsgroup censorship HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 10:16 -0800
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 18:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d4498c30-eca9-425a-b96a-1f8d2feefed8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544617 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > I don't feel threatened by whinning cranks; I find them laughable. > > None of which however has anything to do with the fact that the general > public couldn't give a rat's ass aobut some scientific theory. I think when you find yourself pretending to speak for the general public you should take a deep breath and, maybe, put some thought into finding a gentler hobby.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 02:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l94emc-eug.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #544639 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> I don't feel threatened by whinning cranks; I find them laughable. >> >> None of which however has anything to do with the fact that the general >> public couldn't give a rat's ass aobut some scientific theory. > > I think when you find yourself pretending to speak for the general public you should take a deep breath and, maybe, put some thought into finding a gentler hobby. I think you are a whinning crank who can't accept the fact that no one is interested in your kook theories. If the general public cared aobut scientific theories, they would be on TV, in magazines, there would be lots of web sites, and there would be apps to find the latest; none of that exists. What the general public is interested in is entertainment and TV shows like Scorpian and CSI Cyber where the science is laughable. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 19:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <39c74440-2357-4514-8890-d066a7e11fe8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544643 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:31:05 PM UTC-8, > I think you are a whinning crank who can't accept the fact that no one > is interested in your kook theories. Winning . . . ! Actually, I've had incredible interest in my theory regarding hydrogen bonding. And I just finished the paper December 17th or so. Already it's been reviewed favorably by many of the international experts on hydrogen bonding. It really is a major breakthrough. > > If the general public cared aobut scientific theories, they would be > on TV, in magazines, there would be lots of web sites, and there would be > apps to find the latest; none of that exists. Nova, on PBS must have discussed 20 different theories in the past years. And then there is cable TV. Discovery channel > > What the general public is interested in is entertainment and TV shows > like Scorpian and CSI Cyber where the science is laughable. Turn the channel, powderpuff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 19:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0a2d1c35-9740-4d66-a642-14dd0ee2a24b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544658 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 7:12:26 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: Actually, I've had incredible interest in my theory regarding hydrogen bonding. And I just finished the paper December 17th or so. Already it's been reviewed favorably by many of the international experts on hydrogen bonding. It really is a major breakthrough. And the response here is this NG is nothing compared to what I'm getting in email. It's crazy!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 06:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1hiemc-2di.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #544669 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 7:12:26 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > Actually, I've had incredible interest in my theory regarding hydrogen bonding. And I just finished the paper December 17th or so. Already it's been reviewed favorably by many of the international experts on hydrogen bonding. It really is a major breakthrough. > > And the response here is this NG is nothing compared to what I'm getting in email. It's crazy! What's crazy is you responding to your own posts. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 23:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f18b48e2-acac-4ea6-bf6e-4728284c9c27@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544689 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:31:08 PM UTC-8, > > And the response here is this NG is nothing > > compared to what I'm getting in email. It's > > crazy! > > What's crazy is you responding to your own posts. What do you think this response tells us about you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 18:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7ktfmc-ptm.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #544695 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:31:08 PM UTC-8, > >> > And the response here is this NG is nothing >> > compared to what I'm getting in email. It's >> > crazy! >> >> What's crazy is you responding to your own posts. > > What do you think this response tells us about you? That I noticed you are crazy. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 11:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a28ccf9c-9c25-47c3-b0cb-e2732c932aaa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544825 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:46:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:31:08 PM UTC-8, > > > >> > And the response here is this NG is nothing > >> > compared to what I'm getting in email. It's > >> > crazy! > >> > >> What's crazy is you responding to your own posts. > > > > What do you think this response tells us about you? > > That I noticed you are crazy. > > -- > Jim Pennino That you are desperate to pay insults.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 03:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j49emc-1fh.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #544658 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:31:05 PM UTC-8, > >> I think you are a whinning crank who can't accept the fact that no one >> is interested in your kook theories. > > Winning . . . ! > > Actually, I've had incredible interest in my theory regarding hydrogen bonding. And I just finished the paper December 17th or so. Already it's been reviewed favorably by many of the international experts on hydrogen bonding. It really is a major breakthrough. > Yeah, sure, keep telling yourself that. >> If the general public cared aobut scientific theories, they would be >> on TV, in magazines, there would be lots of web sites, and there would be >> apps to find the latest; none of that exists. > > Nova, on PBS must have discussed 20 different theories in the past years. And then there is cable TV. Discovery channel > PBS is also known as Pretty Boring Stuff and very little viewers. Let me know when CBS or NBC has a prime time hour long special. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 23:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <13101955-9544-4366-aa14-432422b7b470@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544673 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 8:01:08 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:31:05 PM UTC-8, > > > >> I think you are a whinning crank who can't accept the fact that no one > >> is interested in your kook theories. > > > > Winning . . . ! > > > > Actually, I've had incredible interest in my theory regarding hydrogen bonding. And I just finished the paper December 17th or so. Already it's been reviewed favorably by many of the international experts on hydrogen bonding. It really is a major breakthrough. > > > > Yeah, sure, keep telling yourself that. > > >> If the general public cared aobut scientific theories, they would be > >> on TV, in magazines, there would be lots of web sites, and there would be > >> apps to find the latest; none of that exists. > > > > Nova, on PBS must have discussed 20 different theories in the past years. And then there is cable TV. Discovery channel > > > > PBS is also known as Pretty Boring Stuff and very little viewers. > > Let me know when CBS or NBC has a prime time hour long special. > > > -- > Jim Pennino M-branes and superstrings are all from the 80's. "Higgs" is nothing but confirming the standard model already, again from the 1980's. What with quarks and gluons from the '80's, electroweak unification from the 70's, 80's, Guth, '70's, Hawking from the '80's, there is not being anything "found" in physics, high energy physics, since the 80's. (Of course, that's arguable.) So, NOVA/PBS/Discovery keep drawing an arrow on a starry background and saying there's nothing there that is dark something they can't explain, can't find, and can't explain how they'll find, and can't explain why they can't find, it's not much of an anything. I'd be interested to hear a new theory of hydrogen bonding besides the usual van der Waal's or what it is. Then again, I am thinking that the theory here is unifying gravity and the strong nuclear force, with molecular mechanics being a sideshow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 23:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cec96600-9d0b-47a0-a2a8-e839e5c6f9cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544693 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 11:06:33 PM UTC-8, Ross > I'd be interested to hear a new theory of > hydrogen bonding You should like what I have to say, then. But I don't think of my contribution as a new theory but as detail that is added to the existing theory. A small (but essential) detail that was missed on the first go around. You might even just skip ahead to where the paper discusses "The Mechanism." You can always read the rest of the paper afterward. I say this because if you already have a basic understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bondng this will get you right to the heart of my contribution. See the paper in this NG, entitled Hydrogen Bonding the Mechanism . . . > besides the usual van der Waal's or what it is. I think I know what you mean on this point. When an issue goes unresolved for long periods of time, which has certainly been the case with the details of H2O hydrogen bonding, there is a tendency to start grasping at straws and create *new* forces. Van der Waal, London Dispersion forces, Many bodies force, etc. I think these all might actually be nonsense notions. (But I'm open to the possibility that I am wrong, especially about van der Waal's.) > Then again, I am thinking that the theory > here is unifying > gravity and the strong nuclear force, with > molecular mechanics > being a sideshow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 14:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n73o11$m92$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544700 |
On 1/12/2016 1:28 AM, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 11:06:33 PM UTC-8, Ross >> I'd be interested to hear a new theory of hydrogen bonding > > You should like what I have to say, then. But I don't think of my > contribution as a new theory but as detail that is added to the > existing theory. A small (but essential) detail that was missed on > the first go around no need, you are an old stale carpet salesman, with dirty carpets. >> besides the usual van der Waal's or what it is. > > I think these all > might actually be nonsense notions. (But I'm open to the possibility > that I am wrong, > you are not wrong, you are troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 22:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Xe_ky.87786$Hz3.25483@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #544643 |
On 01/11/2016 09:16 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> I don't feel threatened by whinning cranks; I find them laughable.
>>>
>>> None of which however has anything to do with the fact that the general
>>> public couldn't give a rat's ass aobut some scientific theory.
>>
>> I think when you find yourself pretending to speak for the general public you should take a deep breath and, maybe, put some thought into finding a gentler hobby.
>
> I think you are a whinning crank who can't accept the fact that no one
> is interested in your kook theories.
>
> If the general public cared aobut scientific theories, they would be
> on TV, in magazines, there would be lots of web sites, and there would be
> apps to find the latest; none of that exists.
>
> What the general public is interested in is entertainment and TV shows
> like Scorpian and CSI Cyber where the science is laughable.
"science" is laughable on Scorpian? Say it ain't so jimp!
Wait! I'm having trouble typing this. I think I'm being attacked by a
virus from a quantum computer! (You know quantum computers all use
lasers and transmit data 2,600 times faster than my computer can handle)
That's why the virus is being replaced as rapidly as I neutralize it!
Guess I gotta go now.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 03:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k89emc-1fh.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #544662 |
benj <none@gmail.com> wrote: > On 01/11/2016 09:16 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:46:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> I don't feel threatened by whinning cranks; I find them laughable. >>>> >>>> None of which however has anything to do with the fact that the general >>>> public couldn't give a rat's ass aobut some scientific theory. >>> >>> I think when you find yourself pretending to speak for the general public you should take a deep breath and, maybe, put some thought into finding a gentler hobby. >> >> I think you are a whinning crank who can't accept the fact that no one >> is interested in your kook theories. >> >> If the general public cared aobut scientific theories, they would be >> on TV, in magazines, there would be lots of web sites, and there would be >> apps to find the latest; none of that exists. >> >> What the general public is interested in is entertainment and TV shows >> like Scorpian and CSI Cyber where the science is laughable. > > "science" is laughable on Scorpian? Say it ain't so jimp! > > Wait! I'm having trouble typing this. I think I'm being attacked by a > virus from a quantum computer! (You know quantum computers all use > lasers and transmit data 2,600 times faster than my computer can handle) > That's why the virus is being replaced as rapidly as I neutralize it! > Guess I gotta go now. I knew the show would be a loser when in the first episode the crew of an airliner couldn't land the airplane on a clear, blue, sunny day without some computer software. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 17:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <71f80998-a23b-4396-8d80-9e45cb67dc91@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544585 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 6:51:36 AM UTC+8, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:31:04 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In an unmoderated newsgroup, censorship is applied by abuse, being called a crank or coordinated silence. > > > > > > Peter, IMO, newsgroups in general are a waste of time when it comes to scientific advances and discoveries. And academia is worse. The way forward is to make your case directly to the public in video. Just a suggestion. > > > > The general public couldn't give a rat's ass aobut some scientific theory. > > Jim Pennino > > If you yourself were confident in your scientific beliefs maybe you wouldn't feel so threatened by people whose beliefs don't conform perfectly yours. I feel not threatened but feel our paradigms of freedom of expression are dishonest. Bodkin's ideas are honest but also wrong. Why can't we enjoy the right to be heard in public forums such as sci.physics.research? Is it only for the 'elite' and their conforming followers?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 19:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n71lvm$18jn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544623 |
On 1/11/2016 7:07 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > I feel not threatened but feel our paradigms of freedom of expression are dishonest. > Bodkin's ideas are honest but also wrong. Why can't we enjoy the right to be heard > in public forums such as sci.physics.research? Is it only for the 'elite' and their > conforming followers? sci.physics.research is not a public forum. It is a moderated forum. This means that the content is under editorial control, and what is published is under the discretion of its appointed moderators. This is no different than observing that the letters from the public in the newspaper are only printed if approved by the newspaper editor, and articles in Scientific American are only published if approved by the editorial staff. A moderated forum is not for "elite" or for "conforming followers". It is for readers who are interested in moderated content, where it is the job of the moderators to judge which content the readership is interested in. You are not deprived of any right by having your contribution refused there. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 21:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ZUZky.99113$cu5.59697@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #544633 |
On 01/11/2016 08:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/11/2016 7:07 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>> I feel not threatened but feel our paradigms of freedom of expression
>> are dishonest.
>> Bodkin's ideas are honest but also wrong. Why can't we enjoy the right
>> to be heard
>> in public forums such as sci.physics.research? Is it only for the
>> 'elite' and their
>> conforming followers?
>
> sci.physics.research is not a public forum. It is a moderated forum.
> This means that the content is under editorial control, and what is
> published is under the discretion of its appointed moderators. This is
> no different than observing that the letters from the public in the
> newspaper are only printed if approved by the newspaper editor, and
> articles in Scientific American are only published if approved by the
> editorial staff.
What Odd is saying Peter, is that as much as possible all public
discussions need to be censored. This includes the censorship imposed by
editors on journals, the censorship of editors and owners in the public
media and of course the censorship of moderators in Internet
discussions. Can you imagine the havoc created if free and open
discussions were permitted. People freely telling things they've seen
and all manner of wild ideas that run counter to established dogma of
those in power? This cannot be allowed. So control is imposed and where
it can't be imposed as in unmoderated USENET groups those groups are
shut down. ISPs terminating News support and as icing on the cake
"strategic writers" are recruited to enter the groups and disrupt them
until any reasonable discussions are impossible or at least so mixed
with insanity that if Jesus himself posted there, nobody would trust his
sayings as possibly being valid.
This is politics. It's what science has become. He who pays the piper
calls the tune. The idea of tenure as protection from political
influences is DEAD. PERIOD.
> A moderated forum is not for "elite" or for "conforming followers". It
> is for readers who are interested in moderated content, where it is the
> job of the moderators to judge which content the readership is
> interested in. You are not deprived of any right by having your
> contribution refused there.
>
>
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 07:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n730p5$19me$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544651 |
On 1/11/2016 8:53 PM, benj wrote: > What Odd is saying Peter, is that as much as possible all public > discussions need to be censored. Ben, I'm sure you know I consider you to be irrational. You do not think clearly. You invent facts, and you make up what is in other people's heads, and you apparently feel no remorse about that. When someone claims that this is not white, then you respond that that person is claiming this is black, when it is in fact purple -- but you can only see black and white. You believe that because the government has been known to lie, then it is to be taken to be lying about everything -- and the same thing goes for everyone else. I did not say that all public discussion need to be censored, nor do I believe that. I do believe that *some* forums are MODERATED with EDITORIAL CONTROL, and neither of those words are equivalent to censorship, and for you to characterize moderation and editorial control as censorship is both dishonest and a little nuts. > This includes the censorship imposed by > editors on journals, the censorship of editors and owners in the public > media and of course the censorship of moderators in Internet > discussions. Can you imagine the havoc created if free and open > discussions were permitted. Free and open discussions are available here on this UNmoderated newsgroup. That is, free and open discussions ARE permitted. But in your irrational mind, if free and open discussions aren't permitted EVERYWHERE in EVERY VENUE, then they are permitted NOWHERE. > People freely telling things they've seen > and all manner of wild ideas that run counter to established dogma of > those in power? This cannot be allowed. So control is imposed and where > it can't be imposed as in unmoderated USENET groups those groups are > shut down. ISPs terminating News support and as icing on the cake > "strategic writers" are recruited to enter the groups and disrupt them Disrupt them? You forget that they are UNMODERATED groups! People can say what they want on an unmoderated group, including criticizing people like you. If you don't want to seen criticism on an unmoderated group, then you don't really want an UNMODERATED group after all, do you? > until any reasonable discussions are impossible or at least so mixed > with insanity that if Jesus himself posted there, nobody would trust his > sayings as possibly being valid. > > This is politics. It's what science has become. He who pays the piper > calls the tune. The idea of tenure as protection from political > influences is DEAD. PERIOD. What does tenure have to do with moderated and unmoderated groups? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 14:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Omcly.179591$rj1.16631@fx27.iad> |
| In reply to | #544747 |
On 01/12/2016 08:57 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/11/2016 8:53 PM, benj wrote:
>> What Odd is saying Peter, is that as much as possible all public
>> discussions need to be censored.
>
> Ben, I'm sure you know I consider you to be irrational. You do not think
> clearly. You invent facts, and you make up what is in other people's
> heads, and you apparently feel no remorse about that. When someone
> claims that this is not white, then you respond that that person is
> claiming this is black, when it is in fact purple -- but you can only
> see black and white. You believe that because the government has been
> known to lie, then it is to be taken to be lying about everything -- and
> the same thing goes for everyone else.
>
> I did not say that all public discussion need to be censored, nor do I
> believe that. I do believe that *some* forums are MODERATED with
> EDITORIAL CONTROL, and neither of those words are equivalent to
> censorship, and for you to characterize moderation and editorial control
> as censorship is both dishonest and a little nuts.
You are right Boinker. You don't believe ALL discussions should be
censored. You believe that ONLY those discussions going against the
establishment dogma need to be censored. People should be free to spout
the party line as much as they want!
>> This includes the censorship imposed by
>> editors on journals, the censorship of editors and owners in the public
>> media and of course the censorship of moderators in Internet
>> discussions. Can you imagine the havoc created if free and open
>> discussions were permitted.
>
> Free and open discussions are available here on this UNmoderated
> newsgroup. That is, free and open discussions ARE permitted. But in your
> irrational mind, if free and open discussions aren't permitted
> EVERYWHERE in EVERY VENUE, then they are permitted NOWHERE.
>
>> People freely telling things they've seen
>> and all manner of wild ideas that run counter to established dogma of
>> those in power? This cannot be allowed. So control is imposed and where
>> it can't be imposed as in unmoderated USENET groups those groups are
>> shut down. ISPs terminating News support and as icing on the cake
>> "strategic writers" are recruited to enter the groups and disrupt them
>
> Disrupt them? You forget that they are UNMODERATED groups! People can
> say what they want on an unmoderated group, including criticizing people
> like you. If you don't want to seen criticism on an unmoderated group,
> then you don't really want an UNMODERATED group after all, do you?
>
>> until any reasonable discussions are impossible or at least so mixed
>> with insanity that if Jesus himself posted there, nobody would trust his
>> sayings as possibly being valid.
>>
>> This is politics. It's what science has become. He who pays the piper
>> calls the tune. The idea of tenure as protection from political
>> influences is DEAD. PERIOD.
>
> What does tenure have to do with moderated and unmoderated groups?
>
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 14:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n73mad$j9d$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544836 |
On 1/12/2016 1:21 PM, benj wrote: > On 01/12/2016 08:57 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/11/2016 8:53 PM, benj wrote: >>> What Odd is saying Peter, is that as much as possible all public >>> discussions need to be censored. >> >> Ben, I'm sure you know I consider you to be irrational. You do not think >> clearly. You invent facts, and you make up what is in other people's >> heads, and you apparently feel no remorse about that. When someone >> claims that this is not white, then you respond that that person is >> claiming this is black, when it is in fact purple -- but you can only >> see black and white. You believe that because the government has been >> known to lie, then it is to be taken to be lying about everything -- and >> the same thing goes for everyone else. >> >> I did not say that all public discussion need to be censored, nor do I >> believe that. I do believe that *some* forums are MODERATED with >> EDITORIAL CONTROL, and neither of those words are equivalent to >> censorship, and for you to characterize moderation and editorial control >> as censorship is both dishonest and a little nuts. > > You are right Boinker. You don't believe ALL discussions should be > censored. You believe that ONLY those discussions going against the > establishment dogma need to be censored. Heck no, I don't believe that and I've never said it. Why do you make things up, Ben? Have you gotten so accustomed to manufacturing reality that you've forgotten why you do it? Say something else irrational, Ben. You might as well. It fits your identity. > People should be free to spout > the party line as much as they want! > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web