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 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 20:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n71ots$1bc6$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544640 |
On 1/11/2016 8:13 PM, James McGinn wrote: > Usenet is mostly idiots. > Then why are you casting pearls before swine? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 19:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <795cbe41-3c6d-48f2-ae58-e412bce0ca55@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544647 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:37:54 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/11/2016 8:13 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > > Usenet is mostly idiots. > > > > Then why are you casting pearls before swine? Absolutely the best comic strip these days... http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 17:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <R4Wky.110818$IX3.58078@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #544553 |
On 01/11/2016 04:42 PM, James McGinn 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.
>
True, assuming one can stay alive long enough for word to get out.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 15:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n718af$jja$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544496 |
On 1/11/2016 12:41 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > In an unmoderated newsgroup, censorship is applied by abuse, being called a crank > or coordinated silence. In an unmoderated newsgroup, the form of response is uncontrolled and therefore being called a crank is not out of bounds, because ... well, because it's unmoderated. If you encounter silence, consider the possibility that it is in no way coordinated, but that instead you were unable to muster sufficient interest from anyone to warrant a response. Remember that in a newsgroup, you are not owed a response. > Moderated newsgroups like to give reasons for rejections > but they do not hesitate to resort to hypocrisy, double standards and the absurd. > Replies to their judgments are forbidden and appeals, the foundation of a fair > justice system, are absent. A moderated forum, whether that is a publisher of short stories or a cable TV station, does not owe you reasons for rejection. They may not even give you the courtesy of a "No thank you", in which case your submission would just go into the round file with no response. You have the expectation of being given REASONS for not being heeded, which is an irrational and unrealistic expectation. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 17:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <47Wky.110819$IX3.79916@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #544556 |
On 01/11/2016 04:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/11/2016 12:41 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>> In an unmoderated newsgroup, censorship is applied by abuse, being
>> called a crank
>> or coordinated silence.
>
> In an unmoderated newsgroup, the form of response is uncontrolled and
> therefore being called a crank is not out of bounds, because ... well,
> because it's unmoderated. If you encounter silence, consider the
> possibility that it is in no way coordinated, but that instead you were
> unable to muster sufficient interest from anyone to warrant a response.
> Remember that in a newsgroup, you are not owed a response.
>
>> Moderated newsgroups like to give reasons for rejections
>> but they do not hesitate to resort to hypocrisy, double standards and
>> the absurd.
>> Replies to their judgments are forbidden and appeals, the foundation
>> of a fair
>> justice system, are absent.
>
> A moderated forum, whether that is a publisher of short stories or a
> cable TV station, does not owe you reasons for rejection. They may not
> even give you the courtesy of a "No thank you", in which case your
> submission would just go into the round file with no response.
>
> You have the expectation of being given REASONS for not being heeded,
> which is an irrational and unrealistic expectation.
Correct. Money talks and bullshit walks. What use is having power if you
don't use it to further your personal agenda? The advancement of human
civilization or society in general is irrelevant.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 13:40 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfj7cdF37vjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #544496 |
On 12/01/2016 5:41 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > Newsgroup censorship > > All persons in the democracies of the West have the fundamental right > to have access to all expressions of knowledge, creativity and > intellectual activity, and to express their thoughts publicly. > What a strange notion. Here in Australia, with the singular exception of "political speech", all expression is within the gift of the government. When I am allowed to express my ideas, it's only because the government has not seen fit to prohibit it, which it could do. A citizen of the UK doesn't even have a right to political free speech, and the government could prohibit any kind of speech there that it wanted to. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 22:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q6_ky.83613$m53.33746@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #544648 |
On 01/11/2016 09:40 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 12/01/2016 5:41 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>> Newsgroup censorship
>>
>> All persons in the democracies of the West have the fundamental right
>> to have access to all expressions of knowledge, creativity and
>> intellectual activity, and to express their thoughts publicly.
>>
>
> What a strange notion.
>
> Here in Australia, with the singular exception of "political speech",
> all expression is within the gift of the government. When I am allowed
> to express my ideas, it's only because the government has not seen fit
> to prohibit it, which it could do.
>
> A citizen of the UK doesn't even have a right to political free speech,
> and the government could prohibit any kind of speech there that it
> wanted to.
>
> Sylvia.
Listen to Sylvia, Peter. That is the history of Western Civilization.
All rights are GRANTED by those in power. You BEG your liege for
permission to speak. Understand that and life will go a lot easier for you!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 03:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n71r0i$1e3c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544648 |
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote: > On 12/01/2016 5:41 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >> Newsgroup censorship >> >> All persons in the democracies of the West have the fundamental right >> to have access to all expressions of knowledge, creativity and >> intellectual activity, and to express their thoughts publicly. >> > > What a strange notion. > > Here in Australia, with the singular exception of "political speech", > all expression is within the gift of the government. When I am allowed > to express my ideas, it's only because the government has not seen fit > to prohibit it, which it could do. > > A citizen of the UK doesn't even have a right to political free speech, > and the government could prohibit any kind of speech there that it > wanted to. > > Sylvia. > > I think it's much the same everywhere. Freedom of speech is a theoretical construct filed under Bread and Circuses to keep the public happy they have some rights. In Canada, Australia and the US if you work for the govt you obviously can't say anything that upsets the govt, and from what I understand you can't say anything that upsets the boss if you work for anyone. About the only people that get to say anything are American billionaires and the CIA has spiked their drinks to make them sound insane all the time, so again it's just a theoretical freedom. -- Public notice: I am not liable for the debts created by this person: <http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/03/ kim_novak_liza_minnelli_and_june_squibb_at_the_oscars_how_hollywood_treats/ 476343299-actress-kim-novak-attends-the-oscars-held-at-hollywood.jpg.CROP. promo-mediumlarge.jpg>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 20:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2295a96a-a1fe-461d-b16f-e3e04bad868f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544648 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:40:18 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 12/01/2016 5:41 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > Newsgroup censorship > > > > All persons in the democracies of the West have the fundamental right > > to have access to all expressions of knowledge, creativity and > > intellectual activity, and to express their thoughts publicly. > > > > What a strange notion. > > Here in Australia, with the singular exception of "political speech", > all expression is within the gift of the government. When I am allowed > to express my ideas, it's only because the government has not seen fit > to prohibit it, which it could do. > > A citizen of the UK doesn't even have a right to political free speech, > and the government could prohibit any kind of speech there that it > wanted to. > > Sylvia. I am of a naive mindset believing free speech etc is a universal human right. Also while in past years I participated in political activities I now only have an interest in science. Which of the three, religion, politics or science, should in your opinion be open to public comments from an ordinary citizen?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 22:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfk5ucFa90oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #544679 |
On 12/01/2016 3:56 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:40:18 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else > wrote: >> On 12/01/2016 5:41 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> Newsgroup censorship >>> >>> All persons in the democracies of the West have the fundamental >>> right to have access to all expressions of knowledge, creativity >>> and intellectual activity, and to express their thoughts >>> publicly. >>> >> >> What a strange notion. >> >> Here in Australia, with the singular exception of "political >> speech", all expression is within the gift of the government. When >> I am allowed to express my ideas, it's only because the government >> has not seen fit to prohibit it, which it could do. >> >> A citizen of the UK doesn't even have a right to political free >> speech, and the government could prohibit any kind of speech there >> that it wanted to. >> >> Sylvia. > > I am of a naive mindset believing free speech etc is a universal > human right. Also while in past years I participated in political > activities I now only have an interest in science. Which of the > three, religion, politics or science, should in your opinion be open > to public comments from an ordinary citizen? > Even in the absence of the government seeking to restrain speech to protect its own political interest (which it *probably* can't do in Australia, at least theoretically), the idealistic notion of free speech becomes problematic once one starts to look at the details. For example, hate speech. Is that acceptable? What about incitement to commit crimes? To commit terrorism? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 09:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n736dk$1k37$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544679 |
On 1/11/2016 10:56 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > I am of a naive mindset believing free speech etc is a universal human right. You do have free speech. The right to free speech does not extend to any venue of your choice. If you believe it should, then you are indeed naive. Very naive. > Also while in past years I participated in political activities I now only have > an interest in science. Which of the three, religion, politics or science, should > in your opinion be open to public comments from an ordinary citizen? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 22:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7e98c12d-1311-4980-8f2f-5db3d96dbc87@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544496 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 1:10:50 PM UTC+8, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote: > In sci.physics, in article > <7b40664d-02ab-417e-8016-c8bf51432315@googlegroups.com>, > Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> posted: > > > > Newsgroup censorship > > > > All persons in the democracies of the West have the > > fundamental right to have access to all expressions of > > knowledge, creativity and intellectual activity, and to > > express their thoughts publicly. > > > > Newsgroups have a basic responsibility for the > > development and maintenance of intellectual freedom and > > the responsibility to guarantee and facilitate access to > > all expressions of knowledge and intellectual activity, > > including those which some some elements of society may > > consider to be unconventional, unpopular or unacceptable. > > Newsgroups should resist all efforts to limit the > > exercise of these responsibilities while recognizing the > > right of criticism by individuals and groups. > > > > I have been denied these rights by the newsgroup > > sci.physics.research for trying to post four articles. > > The first (The value of G) made it but was killed after > > the first reply because my arguments "were circular". The > > other three were rejected outright. The excuse for the > > second (The mass of the Sun) was "I had already been told > > to cease posting after my first thread The value of G". > > The third post (The aether, Michelson and Einstein) was > > rejected for being "too speculative". The fourth post > > (The aether and Einstein) was rejected because "I used > > Einstein to support my arguments". It was also stated > > that a post rejected by a moderated newsgroup would also > > be rejected by other newsgroups. > > > > In an unmoderated newsgroup, censorship is applied by > > abuse, being called a crank or coordinated silence. > > Moderated newsgroups like to give reasons for rejections > > but they do not hesitate to resort to hypocrisy, double > > standards and the absurd. Replies to their judgments are > > forbidden and appeals, the foundation of a fair justice > > system, are absent. > > > > Peter Riedt > > Your post is available for others to read; there's no > censorship in unmoderated newsgroups. You have the > freedom to ignore or react to the follow-ups to your > post. All appears to be well. > > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi > Om Shanti > > http://bit.do/jaimaharaj Yes, Om Shanti.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 13:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000529232B0BEC3A@aca40449.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #544496 |
Peter Riedt wrote: > Newsgroup censorship > > All persons in the democracies of the West have the fundamental right to have access to all expressions of knowledge, creativity and intellectual activity, and to express their thoughts publicly. > > Newsgroups have a basic responsibility for the development and > maintenance of intellectual freedom and the responsibility to guarantee and facilitate access to all expressions of knowledge and > intellectual activity, including those which some some elements > of society may consider to be unconventional, unpopular or unacceptable. Newsgroups should resist all efforts to limit the exercise of these responsibilities while recognizing the right of criticism by individuals and groups. > > I have been denied these rights by the newsgroup sci.physics.research for trying to post four articles. The first (The value of G) made it but was killed after the first reply because my arguments "were circular". The other three were rejected outright. The excuse for the second (The mass of the Sun) was "I had already been told to cease posting after my first thread The value of G". The third post (The aether, Michelson and Einstein) was rejected for being "too speculative". The fourth post (The aether and Einstein) was rejected because "I used Einstein to support my arguments". It was also stated that a post rejected by a moderated newsgroup would also be rejected by other newsgroups. > > In an unmoderated newsgroup, censorship is applied by abuse, being called a crank or coordinated silence. Moderated newsgroups like to give reasons for rejections but they do not hesitate to resort to hypocrisy, double standards and the absurd. Replies to their judgments are forbidden and appeals, the foundation of a fair justice system, are absent. You are writing nonsense. Go read the specs about newsgroups. There was a reason for creating moderated newsgroups. Whinging about not being allowed in them demonstrates that you don't do serious work. If you really want to do serious work, then start studying. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Catherine Jefferson <spamtrap@spambouncer.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 08:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <n73adf$7da$1@news.sosdg.org> |
| In reply to | #544496 |
On 1/11/2016 10:41 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > In an unmoderated newsgroup, censorship is applied by abuse, being > called a crank or coordinated silence. Moderated newsgroups like to > give reasons for rejections but they do not hesitate to resort to > hypocrisy, double standards and the absurd. Replies to their > judgments are forbidden and appeals, the foundation of a fair justice > system, are absent. Abuse, being called a crank, or coordinated silence are not censorship. They're voluntary responses to posts and posters whom other participants in the newsgroup believe are cranks or posting worthless content. Other posters have the same rights to hold and express opinions about you and your posts as you do about them and their posts. The word "censorship" has a meaning, and the reality of censorship is ugly. I don't want the word to lose its meaning because somebody misuses the term to describe voluntary actions that show disapproval of their posts. <back to lurking> -- Catherine Jefferson <tw86034@ergosphere.net> Blog/Personal: http://www.ergosphere.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 11:04 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n73bmv$1u42$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544791 |
On 1/12/2016 10:42 AM, Catherine Jefferson wrote: > On 1/11/2016 10:41 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >> In an unmoderated newsgroup, censorship is applied by abuse, being >> called a crank or coordinated silence. Moderated newsgroups like to >> give reasons for rejections but they do not hesitate to resort to >> hypocrisy, double standards and the absurd. Replies to their >> judgments are forbidden and appeals, the foundation of a fair justice >> system, are absent. > > Abuse, being called a crank, or coordinated silence are not censorship. > They're voluntary responses to posts and posters whom other > participants in the newsgroup believe are cranks or posting worthless > content. Other posters have the same rights to hold and express > opinions about you and your posts as you do about them and their posts. > > The word "censorship" has a meaning, and the reality of censorship is > ugly. I don't want the word to lose its meaning because somebody > misuses the term to describe voluntary actions that show disapproval of > their posts. > > <back to lurking> > Agree with you. Getting comments back that the OP finds insulting is in fact BECAUSE the group is unmoderated, and respondents can say what they'd like. What the OP wants is a SAFE place to make posts that are critical of mainstream physics, but where there would be no comments that are critical of those posts in return. What the OP wants is attention and encouragement and POSITIVE feedback, which the kind of thing you might hope for from your mother, but not from an unmoderated newsgroup. OP would do well to grow up a little. Maybe get a more aggressive push in that direction from his mother. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 09:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0acb9649-16dd-4674-a580-18cdd372b4ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544791 |
In the past couple of months, some "American women whose names I don't remember have called on all American women to wear headscarves in public to show support for and solidarity with Muslim women in America". -------------- Since it is Muslims who are the ones doing the bombings, plus the fact that they are now a part of America, it is incumbent upon Muslim women to ditch the wearing of the uniform of the terrorist.... The hijab and the burka. Until that time, all Americans should (non violently ofc) make fun of people dressed in this circa 1300 ad garb. Point at them. Laugh at them. Shame them. Let them know that they have a duty to assimilate into the modern culture of America. Just like every other minority that had come here and done... They get no pass because they are Muslim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 11:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3c9eee8b-0ecc-45ab-80dd-a95a594b4393@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544496 |
In an unmoderated newsgroup, censorship is applied by abuse, being called a crank or coordinated silence. I agree. Unmoderated NGs are just a haven for trolls. But a moderated NG, especially sci.physics.research, is no different in that the moderators are the trolls.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 14:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n73mh8$jt8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544839 |
On 1/12/2016 1:26 PM, James McGinn wrote: > In an unmoderated newsgroup, censorship is applied by abuse, being called a crank or coordinated silence. > > I agree. Unmoderated NGs are just a haven for trolls. But a moderated NG, especially sci.physics.research, > is no different in that the moderators are the trolls. > Then it seems you have chosen wisely where you spend your time -- a place you identify as only a haven for trolls. People have the strangest motivations. John Sefton, for example, doesn't really like the scientific method, doesn't believe its outcomes or its viability. Which is why he frequents the discussions on a science newsgroup. Go figure. You post news of your work to a newsgroup you disparage as being nothing but a haven for trolls. Go figure. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 12:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <45cec23a-e712-48b2-8e77-e5cf4cf16755@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544846 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 12:09:18 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/12/2016 1:26 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > In an unmoderated newsgroup, censorship is applied by abuse, being called a crank or coordinated silence. > > > > I agree. Unmoderated NGs are just a haven for trolls. But a moderated NG, especially sci.physics.research, > > is no different in that the moderators are the trolls. > > > > Then it seems you have chosen wisely where you spend your time -- a > place you identify as only a haven for trolls. > > People have the strangest motivations. > > John Sefton, for example, doesn't really like the scientific method, > doesn't believe its outcomes or its viability. Which is why he frequents > the discussions on a science newsgroup. Go figure. Who cares. You have nothing interesting to say, yet you keep saying it. NGs are filled with inane pretenders like yourself. The scientific method is taught to high school students. Yet it, the scientific method, is the closest thing to a point you've ever had. You are a pedantic fool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 14:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n73o85$mm6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544851 |
On 1/12/2016 2:27 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 12:09:18 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/12/2016 1:26 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>> In an unmoderated newsgroup, censorship is applied by abuse, being called a crank or coordinated silence. >>> >>> I agree. Unmoderated NGs are just a haven for trolls. But a moderated NG, especially sci.physics.research, >>> is no different in that the moderators are the trolls. >>> >> >> Then it seems you have chosen wisely where you spend your time -- a >> place you identify as only a haven for trolls. >> >> People have the strangest motivations. >> >> John Sefton, for example, doesn't really like the scientific method, >> doesn't believe its outcomes or its viability. Which is why he frequents >> the discussions on a science newsgroup. Go figure. > > Who cares. You have nothing interesting to say, yet you keep saying it. NGs are filled with inane > pretenders like yourself. Maybe so. You're one of them. > The scientific method is taught to high school students. Yet it, the scientific > method, is the closest thing to a point you've ever had. You are a pedantic fool. Well, there you go. Given up on artistry in put-down, I see, and just going for clumsy five-worders. I'll reiterate the POINT, which you may have missed, is that you continue to post to a newsgroup that YOU have described as "just a haven for trolls". And you do so without any hesitation or self-examination. It's as though you waste your own time on purpose and by your own admission. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web