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 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 12:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <319f392d-c803-4706-8e8d-886b24311f4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544845 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 12:05:38 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > 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 Ben, I think it's simpler than that. People that lack intelligence tend to resent it in others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 14:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n73ns9$m1m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544848 |
On 1/12/2016 2:12 PM, James McGinn wrote: > Ben, I think it's simpler than that. People that lack intelligence tend to resent it in others. And other self-coddling aphorisms. Take your pick. They all might bring some comfort. But consider -- just consider -- the possibility that the laughter you regularly hear is not associated with jealousy but instead just amusement. I know you don't MEAN to be a bozo.... -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 18:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <CDfly.59545$Bz5.11849@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #544856 |
On 01/12/2016 03:32 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/12/2016 2:12 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> Ben, I think it's simpler than that. People that lack intelligence
>> tend to resent it in others.
>
> And other self-coddling aphorisms. Take your pick. They all might bring
> some comfort.
>
> But consider -- just consider -- the possibility that the laughter you
> regularly hear is not associated with jealousy but instead just
> amusement. I know you don't MEAN to be a bozo....
>
Aw, go ahead Boinker! Tell James he's "insane". Then nobody will need
pay any attention to him and will listen to your spew instead. Right?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 17:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7413v$147k$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544918 |
On 1/12/2016 5:04 PM, benj wrote: > On 01/12/2016 03:32 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/12/2016 2:12 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>> Ben, I think it's simpler than that. People that lack intelligence >>> tend to resent it in others. >> >> And other self-coddling aphorisms. Take your pick. They all might bring >> some comfort. >> >> But consider -- just consider -- the possibility that the laughter you >> regularly hear is not associated with jealousy but instead just >> amusement. I know you don't MEAN to be a bozo.... >> > Aw, go ahead Boinker! Tell James he's "insane". Then nobody will need > pay any attention to him and will listen to your spew instead. Right? > Heck no. I don't have to call him insane. You're the insane one. As for who pays attention to Jim McGinn, we shall see. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 00:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bclly.153918$zT1.132429@fx26.iad> |
| In reply to | #544922 |
On 01/12/2016 06:09 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/12/2016 5:04 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 01/12/2016 03:32 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 1/12/2016 2:12 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>> Ben, I think it's simpler than that. People that lack intelligence
>>>> tend to resent it in others.
>>>
>>> And other self-coddling aphorisms. Take your pick. They all might bring
>>> some comfort.
>>>
>>> But consider -- just consider -- the possibility that the laughter you
>>> regularly hear is not associated with jealousy but instead just
>>> amusement. I know you don't MEAN to be a bozo....
>>>
>> Aw, go ahead Boinker! Tell James he's "insane". Then nobody will need
>> pay any attention to him and will listen to your spew instead. Right?
>>
>
> Heck no. I don't have to call him insane. You're the insane one.
> As for who pays attention to Jim McGinn, we shall see.
You are insane as is clear from your loss of touch with reality. That is
the definition, is it not? That means that nobody here needs to pay the
slightest attention to anything you say.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 08:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n75len$oor$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544998 |
On 1/12/2016 11:24 PM, benj wrote: > You are insane as is clear from your loss of touch with reality. That is > the definition, is it not? That means that nobody here needs to pay the > slightest attention to anything you say. No, the definition of insanity is not that he should be ignored. Hucksters should be ignored, but they're not insane. Attention whores should be ignored, but they're not insane. You should be ignored, and you are insane. You see? Insanity is not correlated with being ignored. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 17:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0wfly.87917$Hz3.2270@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #544845 |
On 01/12/2016 03:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 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.
Why do people with no education or intelligence always think that
everyone else who tries to give them a fact or two is "insane"?
I guess it's the way they justify their incompetence in a world filled
with people who actually have a brain. Go to any mental ward and see how
many patients think that it is the rest of the world who are insane.
>> People should be free to spout
>> the party line as much as they want!
>>
>
>
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 17:04 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n740q1$147k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544909 |
On 1/12/2016 4:55 PM, benj wrote: > On 01/12/2016 03:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> 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. > > Why do people with no education or intelligence always think that > everyone else who tries to give them a fact or two is "insane"? What fact are you referring to, Ben? The "fact" that I believe that any discussion going against establishment dogma needs to be censored? The "fact" that I said that as much as possible all public discussions should be censored? How about the reality that you make up "facts"? Is that a sign of insanity or a sign of being a compulsive liar? You choose. > I guess it's the way they justify their incompetence in a world filled > with people who actually have a brain. Go to any mental ward and see how > many patients think that it is the rest of the world who are insane. Exactly, Ben. You've said you think the rest of the world is corrupt and you're the one who's not. What does that tell you? > >>> 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]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 00:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d9lly.153916$zT1.110691@fx26.iad> |
| In reply to | #544919 |
On 01/12/2016 06:04 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/12/2016 4:55 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 01/12/2016 03:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Why do people with no education or intelligence always think that
>> everyone else who tries to give them a fact or two is "insane"?
>
> What fact are you referring to, Ben? The "fact" that I believe that any
> discussion going against establishment dogma needs to be censored? The
> "fact" that I said that as much as possible all public discussions
> should be censored?
>
> How about the reality that you make up "facts"? Is that a sign of
> insanity or a sign of being a compulsive liar? You choose.
>
>> I guess it's the way they justify their incompetence in a world filled
>> with people who actually have a brain. Go to any mental ward and see how
>> many patients think that it is the rest of the world who are insane.
>
> Exactly, Ben. You've said you think the rest of the world is corrupt and
> you're the one who's not. What does that tell you?
I did not. Now you have entered into HVAC territory. Did your
"superpowers" tell you that I "believe" in ESP and "remote viewing" as
well? HVAC believes in astrology.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 20:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f08034e4-9c32-484d-b063-56e755a710bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544633 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:47:41 AM UTC+8, 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. > > 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. > > sci.physics.research Shared publicly (if approved by the censors) 30 of 15313 topics (99+ unread)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 09:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n736bb$1k37$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544677 |
On 1/11/2016 10:16 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:47:41 AM UTC+8, 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. >> >> 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. >> >> > sci.physics.research Shared publicly (if approved by the censors) > 30 of 15313 topics (99+ unread) Peter, if you want to confuse censorship with moderation and editorial control, that's up to you. They do not mean the same thing. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 21:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <93d3f5d2-53f9-4b67-ae9c-39cabd0a968e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544633 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:47:41 AM UTC+8, 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
sci.physics.research is a moderated newsgroup designed to offer an environment with less traffic and more opportunity for discussion of serious topics in physics among experts and beginners alike. There is an archive copy of the charter for this group and also a regular administrivia posting.
From the charter:
NEWSGROUP NAME: sci.physics.research.
This newsgroup is to be "lightly" moderated--that is, the moderators
will only reject clearly inappropriate postings, and will accept any
that has serious physics content or that is likely to be of interest
to an audience of professional physicists. Clearly inappropriate
postings include:
(1) Personal attacks;
(2) Discussion that isn't about or related to physics;
(3) Multiple responses that all say the same things; and
(4) Crackpot postings that are "not even wrong."
Note also that this newsgroup is not a peer reviewed journal; the
moderators are not referees or editors, and they do not have the time
to check whether the physics (or the grammar!) in each posting is
actually correct. As long as an article is readable, and isn't
blatantly nonsensical, it's fine.
This newsgroup generally complies with its charter but in my case it applied its powers to bar me from posting. Why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 09:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n736kb$1kmo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544680 |
On 1/11/2016 11:02 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:47:41 AM UTC+8, 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. >> >> 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. >> >> > > sci.physics.research is a moderated newsgroup designed to offer an environment with less traffic > and more opportunity for discussion of serious topics in physics among experts and beginners alike. > There is an archive copy of the charter for this group and also a regular administrivia posting. > > From the charter: > > NEWSGROUP NAME: sci.physics.research. > > This newsgroup is to be "lightly" moderated--that is, the moderators > will only reject clearly inappropriate postings, and will accept any > that has serious physics content or that is likely to be of interest > to an audience of professional physicists. Clearly inappropriate > postings include: > > (1) Personal attacks; > (2) Discussion that isn't about or related to physics; > (3) Multiple responses that all say the same things; and > (4) Crackpot postings that are "not even wrong." > > Note also that this newsgroup is not a peer reviewed journal; the > moderators are not referees or editors, and they do not have the time > to check whether the physics (or the grammar!) in each posting is > actually correct. As long as an article is readable, and isn't > blatantly nonsensical, it's fine. > > This newsgroup generally complies with its charter but in my case it applied its powers > to bar me from posting. Why? > Peter, it's good that you read the charter, and that you understand what moderation means. I think what's unreasonable now is your expectation that a rejection of content to a moderated forum should come with a COMPELLING RATIONALE for that rejection. You are not owed that by moderators. Nor is there anything in the charter that sets the expectation that you'll be provided that. The same is true in the real world, where if you submit something to the newspaper or to a magazine publisher, you may not even get an acknowledgement of receipt, let alone a rationale for rejection of the submission. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 16:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <924102f2-3633-44fc-9840-398416e6b723@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544769 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 11:37:52 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/11/2016 11:02 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:47:41 AM UTC+8, 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. > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> > > > > sci.physics.research is a moderated newsgroup designed to offer an environment with less traffic > > and more opportunity for discussion of serious topics in physics among experts and beginners alike. > > There is an archive copy of the charter for this group and also a regular administrivia posting. > > > > From the charter: > > > > NEWSGROUP NAME: sci.physics.research. > > > > This newsgroup is to be "lightly" moderated--that is, the moderators > > will only reject clearly inappropriate postings, and will accept any > > that has serious physics content or that is likely to be of interest > > to an audience of professional physicists. Clearly inappropriate > > postings include: > > > > (1) Personal attacks; > > (2) Discussion that isn't about or related to physics; > > (3) Multiple responses that all say the same things; and > > (4) Crackpot postings that are "not even wrong." > > > > Note also that this newsgroup is not a peer reviewed journal; the > > moderators are not referees or editors, and they do not have the time > > to check whether the physics (or the grammar!) in each posting is > > actually correct. As long as an article is readable, and isn't > > blatantly nonsensical, it's fine. > > > > This newsgroup generally complies with its charter but in my case it applied its powers > > to bar me from posting. Why? > > > > Peter, it's good that you read the charter, and that you understand what > moderation means. > > I think what's unreasonable now is your expectation that a rejection of > content to a moderated forum should come with a COMPELLING RATIONALE for > that rejection. You are not owed that by moderators. Nor is there > anything in the charter that sets the expectation that you'll be > provided that. > > The same is true in the real world, where if you submit something to the > newspaper or to a magazine publisher, you may not even get an > acknowledgement of receipt, let alone a rationale for rejection of the > submission. > > -- You as always miss my point. The charter is ok and it provides four reasons for rejection. None of them apply in my case in my opinion. They could claim I am a crank but without justification. It was discrimination and I objected to that. However, you allude to the fact that this intellectual discrimination exists in our society and nothing can be done about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 16:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <65db8d72-6db9-4959-8a36-9e3a9e5fdccc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544932 |
You as always miss my point. The charter is ok and it provides four reasons for rejection. None of them apply in my case in my opinion. They could claim I am a crank but without justification. It was discrimination and I objected to that. However, you allude to the fact that this intellectual discrimination exists in our society and nothing can be done about it. -------------- Quit your bitchin and shut the fuck up, crybaby
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 07:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n75k9g$ms2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #544932 |
On 1/12/2016 6:04 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > You as always miss my point. The charter is ok and it provides four reasons for rejection. > None of them apply in my case in my opinion. They could claim I am a crank but without > justification. It was discrimination and I objected to that. However, you allude to the > fact that this intellectual discrimination exists in our society and nothing can be done > about it. And you missed MY point. You say that it is YOUR OPINION is that your contribution doesn't meet any of the four reasons for rejection. However, YOUR OPINION is not what matters, is it? What matters is the opinion of the moderators. And as I explained to you, they are not obligated to sway YOUR OPINION to match theirs. They do not have to provide a justification that meets your satisfaction. This is exactly the way it is in the real world, Peter. Editorial control is not intellectual discrimination. It is not censorship. Labeling it as such is dishonest. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 07:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b56432e0-9ac9-4ade-9482-81d37736197f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545049 |
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 3:43:18 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/12/2016 6:04 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > You as always miss my point. The charter is ok and it provides four reasons for rejection. > > None of them apply in my case in my opinion. They could claim I am a crank but without > > justification. It was discrimination and I objected to that. However, you allude to the > > fact that this intellectual discrimination exists in our society and nothing can be done > > about it. > > And you missed MY point. You say that it is YOUR OPINION is that your > contribution doesn't meet any of the four reasons for rejection. > However, YOUR OPINION is not what matters, is it? What matters is the > opinion of the moderators. And as I explained to you, they are not > obligated to sway YOUR OPINION to match theirs. They do not have to > provide a justification that meets your satisfaction. This is exactly > the way it is in the real world, Peter. > > Editorial control is not intellectual discrimination. It is not > censorship. Labeling it as such is dishonest. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables =========================== nasty anonymous pig what are you doing here :: why don t you nasty anonymous thief go to sci research ??!!! Y.Porat =====================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 17:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <txAly.156566$Gc6.5355@fx08.iad> |
| In reply to | #545049 |
On 01/13/2016 08:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/12/2016 6:04 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>> You as always miss my point. The charter is ok and it provides four
>> reasons for rejection.
>> None of them apply in my case in my opinion. They could claim I am a
>> crank but without
>> justification. It was discrimination and I objected to that. However,
>> you allude to the
>> fact that this intellectual discrimination exists in our society and
>> nothing can be done
>> about it.
>
> And you missed MY point. You say that it is YOUR OPINION is that your
> contribution doesn't meet any of the four reasons for rejection.
> However, YOUR OPINION is not what matters, is it? What matters is the
> opinion of the moderators. And as I explained to you, they are not
> obligated to sway YOUR OPINION to match theirs. They do not have to
> provide a justification that meets your satisfaction. This is exactly
> the way it is in the real world, Peter.
>
> Editorial control is not intellectual discrimination. It is not
> censorship. Labeling it as such is dishonest.
It is when you have a political agenda. Next.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 14:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n78vst$hqe$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #545198 |
On 1/13/2016 4:51 PM, benj wrote: > On 01/13/2016 08:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/12/2016 6:04 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> You as always miss my point. The charter is ok and it provides four >>> reasons for rejection. >>> None of them apply in my case in my opinion. They could claim I am a >>> crank but without >>> justification. It was discrimination and I objected to that. However, >>> you allude to the >>> fact that this intellectual discrimination exists in our society and >>> nothing can be done >>> about it. >> >> And you missed MY point. You say that it is YOUR OPINION is that your >> contribution doesn't meet any of the four reasons for rejection. >> However, YOUR OPINION is not what matters, is it? What matters is the >> opinion of the moderators. And as I explained to you, they are not >> obligated to sway YOUR OPINION to match theirs. They do not have to >> provide a justification that meets your satisfaction. This is exactly >> the way it is in the real world, Peter. >> >> Editorial control is not intellectual discrimination. It is not >> censorship. Labeling it as such is dishonest. > > It is when you have a political agenda. Next. > And it isn't when there isn't a political agenda. Now the question is about your presumption of them having a political agenda. And I gather your position is that a political position should be presumed until proven absent. That's YOUR stance. But then again, you're a paranoid nutjob. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 18:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ea9b331f-a41f-436e-9cc4-fa2fbb64b34d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #544623 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 5:07:40 PM UTC-8, 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? That comment wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the peanut gallery of idiots that are responding to you. Usenet is mostly idiots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web