Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #534442 > unrolled thread

Re: Best Actor Eddie Redmayne on Portraying Stephen Hawking

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Best Actor Eddie Redmayne on Portraying Stephen Hawking Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 17:02 -0600
    Re: Best Actor Eddie Redmayne on Portraying Stephen Hawking jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 23:35 +0000
    Re: Best Actor Eddie Redmayne on Portraying Stephen Hawking Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-21 21:26 -0500
      Re: Best Actor Eddie Redmayne on Portraying Stephen Hawking Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 07:59 -0600
        Re: Best Actor Eddie Redmayne on Portraying Stephen Hawking Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-22 11:14 -0500
          Re: Best Actor Eddie Redmayne on Portraying Stephen Hawking Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 12:40 -0600
            Re: Best Actor Eddie Redmayne on Portraying Stephen Hawking Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-22 14:39 -0500

#534442 — Re: Best Actor Eddie Redmayne on Portraying Stephen Hawking

On 2/24/15 7:50 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> More than once, it seemed you wanted to don the mantle of Uncle Al.

   Uncle Al was a bit brutal -- I care about getting the science right
   but in a more gentlemanly fashion.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#534458

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/24/15 7:50 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>> More than once, it seemed you wanted to don the mantle of Uncle Al.
> 
>   Uncle Al was a bit brutal -- I care about getting the science right
>   but in a more gentlemanly fashion.
 
Yeah, sure. 
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534486

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 17:02:32 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

>On 2/24/15 7:50 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>> More than once, it seemed you wanted to don the mantle of Uncle Al.

It took you nine months to compose the following wannabe reply?

>   Uncle Al was a bit brutal

Uncle Al was not necessarily nice; but he was funny, mostly right, and
expressed himself in his own words.

> -- I care about getting the science right

Even cranks think they are "getting the science right".

Tell us about "getting the science right" in this post:
:From: Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
:Subject: Superfluidity in topologically nontrivial flat bands
:Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:57:18 -0600
:Message-ID: <ANmdneMIQplD39LLnZ2dnUU7-Y_OydjZ@giganews.com>
"superconductors have to be cooled down below one hundred degrees
centigrade to manifest their unique properties"

They also need to be cooled down below the melting point of copper, if
one starts with molten material.

The intended statement probably referred to a temperature below the
usual melting point of ice. You didn't edit the text accordingly
before you parroted it.

So "getting the science right" seems to have been secondary to spewing
an adequate volume of copy-and-paste posts.

> but in a more gentlemanly fashion.

What is "gentlemanly" about spamming?

To the point of the post you quoted: Do you or don't you want others
to see you as having a glory that is at least equal to Uncle Al's?

Are you saying you are a kinder and gentler version of Uncle Al?

I have seen posts with "Uncle Al said ..." even though he has been
absent for some time. 

Can you cite a flattering post similar to: "Sam parroted something
about this just last week ..."?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534539

On 11/21/15 8:26 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> Uncle Al was not necessarily nice; but he was funny, mostly right, and
> expressed himself in his own words.

   How did you judge that Uncle Al was mostly right? Did you ever
   read his references to the journal articles he cited?



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534563

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 07:59:31 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

>On 11/21/15 8:26 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>> Uncle Al was not necessarily nice; but he was funny, mostly right, and
>> expressed himself in his own words.
>
>   How did you judge that Uncle Al was mostly right? Did you ever
>   read his references to the journal articles he cited?

It is a belief; informed by, among other factors: reasoning, learning,
observation, comparing the strengths of arguments, and by reference to
my bullshit meter.

The belief was not influenced by posting volume.

Archie-Poo has posted a lot. So have you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534578

On 11/22/15 10:14 AM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 07:59:31 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> On 11/21/15 8:26 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>> Uncle Al was not necessarily nice; but he was funny, mostly right, and
>>> expressed himself in his own words.
>>
>>    How did you judge that Uncle Al was mostly right? Did you ever
>>    read his references to the journal articles he cited?
>
> It is a belief; informed by, among other factors: reasoning, learning,
> observation, comparing the strengths of arguments, and by reference to
> my bullshit meter.
>
> The belief was not influenced by posting volume.
>
> Archie-Poo has posted a lot. So have you.
>

   So you are "taking it on faith" that Uncle Al was always correct,
   because you never bothered to check the science sources. Similarly
   you "take it on faith" that I am wrong with out bothering to check
   the actual science.

   That's your bias and you are sticking to it.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534591

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 12:40:44 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

>On 11/22/15 10:14 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 07:59:31 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/21/15 8:26 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>> Uncle Al was not necessarily nice; but he was funny, mostly right, and
>>>> expressed himself in his own words.
>>>
>>>    How did you judge that Uncle Al was mostly right? Did you ever
>>>    read his references to the journal articles he cited?
>>
>> It is a belief; informed by, among other factors: reasoning, learning,
>> observation, comparing the strengths of arguments, and by reference to
>> my bullshit meter.
>>
>> The belief was not influenced by posting volume.
>>
>> Archie-Poo has posted a lot. So have you.
>>
>
>   So you are "taking it on faith" that Uncle Al was always correct,

I didn't say he was always correct.

But he rarely broke one of my bullshit meters.

>   because you never bothered to check the science sources. 

How do you know I *never* checked "***the*** science sources?"

Are you  "taking it on faith?"

>Similarly
>   you "take it on faith" that I am wrong 

How often? Are you never wrong?

> with out bothering to check the actual science.

Again, how do you know whether I have been "bothering to check
***the*** actual science?"

>   That's your bias and you are sticking to it.

Does mention of ***the*** actual science imply "***the*** science is
settled?"

If so, shall we defund all climastrologists who are only rehashing
***the*** settled science?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web