Scientific American and Science censorship...
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Definitely Demolition - Proven FACT, 9/11 could not possibly have been other than an inside job.
Next: [Guardian] 'Climategate' debate: less meltdown, more well-mannered argument
From: Androcles on 19 Jul 2010 22:05 "Vince Morgan" <vinhar(a)TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4c44fda8$0$3034$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... And a blind roach living in a cave can be convinced that there exists nothing other than the roaches, and the universal cave. Any number of experiments may be devised to prove it. If a roach of sufficient esteem were to state it as fact, well, then who would dare suggest further investigation is required? If a sceptical roach were to mention that he occasioanaly feels a breeze he would then be required to prove what a breese is first, and of course then the breeze would have to be replicated on demand! The fact that he could not do this is then offered as proof that there is no such thing as a breeze in the whole universe/cave, and that he is clearly fraudelent in his claims about said breeze. Anyone else thereon who noticed a breeze quickly remembers the humiliation of the first skeptical roach who would now be skuttling ahead of Benj's broom at Burger King, if such a place were to exist in caveland. Knowing that everything you were taught works doesn't prove in the least that what you were not taught cannot! This seems to be rather difficult to understand, apparently. The fact is there are anomolies and the establishment has a track record of lambasting, or worse, anyone who will not forget that they do exist. I beleive that Richard Feynman once said "The exception tests the rule."and so, when we have anomolies we, we, ohhh, that's right, we ignore them as measurement errors and lambast the researcher. There is only one reality and that's the universal cave, but some just don't get it. Regards, Vince ========================================== Of course, nobody sane would write "breese", "fraudelent", "occasioanaly" "anomolies" or "beleive" except a fraudulent troll.
From: Vince Morgan on 19 Jul 2010 22:12 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message news:Rv71o.191599$NM4.59145(a)hurricane... > > "Vince Morgan" <vinhar(a)TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:4c44fda8$0$3034$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > And a blind roach living in a cave can be convinced that there exists > nothing other than the roaches, and the universal cave. Any number of > experiments may be devised to prove it. If a roach of sufficient esteem > were to state it as fact, well, then who would dare suggest further > investigation is required? If a sceptical roach were to mention that he > occasioanaly feels a breeze he would then be required to prove what a > breese > is first, and of course then the breeze would have to be replicated on > demand! The fact that he could not do this is then offered as proof that > there is no such thing as a breeze in the whole universe/cave, and that he > is clearly fraudelent in his claims about said breeze. > Anyone else thereon who noticed a breeze quickly remembers the humiliation > of the first skeptical roach who would now be skuttling ahead of Benj's > broom at Burger King, if such a place were to exist in caveland. > Knowing that everything you were taught works doesn't prove in the least > that what you were not taught cannot! This seems to be rather difficult to > understand, apparently. > The fact is there are anomolies and the establishment has a track record > of > lambasting, or worse, anyone who will not forget that they do exist. > I beleive that Richard Feynman once said "The exception tests the > rule."and > so, when we have anomolies we, we, ohhh, that's right, we ignore them as > measurement errors and lambast the researcher. There is only one reality > and that's the universal cave, but some just don't get it. > Regards, > Vince > ========================================== > Of course, nobody sane would write "breese", "fraudelent", "occasioanaly" > "anomolies" or "beleive" except a fraudulent troll. > Nice to see you contributing in the usual fashion Andro.
From: Androcles on 19 Jul 2010 22:46 "Vince Morgan" <vinhar(a)TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4c450585$0$7966$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... | | "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message | news:Rv71o.191599$NM4.59145(a)hurricane... | > | > "Vince Morgan" <vinhar(a)TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote in message | > news:4c44fda8$0$3034$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... | > | > And a blind roach living in a cave can be convinced that there exists | > nothing other than the roaches, and the universal cave. Any number of | > experiments may be devised to prove it. If a roach of sufficient esteem | > were to state it as fact, well, then who would dare suggest further | > investigation is required? If a sceptical roach were to mention that he | > occasioanaly feels a breeze he would then be required to prove what a | > breese | > is first, and of course then the breeze would have to be replicated on | > demand! The fact that he could not do this is then offered as proof that | > there is no such thing as a breeze in the whole universe/cave, and that | he | > is clearly fraudelent in his claims about said breeze. | > Anyone else thereon who noticed a breeze quickly remembers the | humiliation | > of the first skeptical roach who would now be skuttling ahead of Benj's | > broom at Burger King, if such a place were to exist in caveland. | > Knowing that everything you were taught works doesn't prove in the least | > that what you were not taught cannot! This seems to be rather difficult | to | > understand, apparently. | > The fact is there are anomolies and the establishment has a track record | > of | > lambasting, or worse, anyone who will not forget that they do exist. | > I beleive that Richard Feynman once said "The exception tests the | > rule."and | > so, when we have anomolies we, we, ohhh, that's right, we ignore them as | > measurement errors and lambast the researcher. There is only one reality | > and that's the universal cave, but some just don't get it. | > Regards, | > Vince | > ========================================== | > Of course, nobody sane would write "breese", "fraudelent", "occasioanaly" | > "anomolies" or "beleive" except a fraudulent troll. | > | Nice to see you contributing in the usual fashion Andro. | Thank you, Vince. Not nice to see you attributing someone else's words to me, especially when you are that someone else. However, it is quite easy to detect something I've written versus something you've written by the quantity of spelling errors you make. Have you considered getting a spelling checker? They are free, you know. Or you should.
From: Vince Morgan on 20 Jul 2010 03:44 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message news:2681o.193531$9c1.141588(a)hurricane... > > "Vince Morgan" <vinhar(a)TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:4c450585$0$7966$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > | > | "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message > | news:Rv71o.191599$NM4.59145(a)hurricane... > | > > | > "Vince Morgan" <vinhar(a)TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > | > news:4c44fda8$0$3034$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > | > > | > And a blind roach living in a cave can be convinced that there exists > | > nothing other than the roaches, and the universal cave. Any number of > | > experiments may be devised to prove it. If a roach of sufficient esteem > | > were to state it as fact, well, then who would dare suggest further > | > investigation is required? If a sceptical roach were to mention that he > | > occasioanaly feels a breeze he would then be required to prove what a > | > breese > | > is first, and of course then the breeze would have to be replicated on > | > demand! The fact that he could not do this is then offered as proof > that > | > there is no such thing as a breeze in the whole universe/cave, and that > | he > | > is clearly fraudelent in his claims about said breeze. > | > Anyone else thereon who noticed a breeze quickly remembers the > | humiliation > | > of the first skeptical roach who would now be skuttling ahead of Benj's > | > broom at Burger King, if such a place were to exist in caveland. > | > Knowing that everything you were taught works doesn't prove in the > least > | > that what you were not taught cannot! This seems to be rather difficult > | to > | > understand, apparently. > | > The fact is there are anomolies and the establishment has a track > record > | > of > | > lambasting, or worse, anyone who will not forget that they do exist. > | > I beleive that Richard Feynman once said "The exception tests the > | > rule."and > | > so, when we have anomolies we, we, ohhh, that's right, we ignore them > as > | > measurement errors and lambast the researcher. There is only one > reality > | > and that's the universal cave, but some just don't get it. > | > Regards, > | > Vince > | > ========================================== > | > Of course, nobody sane would write "breese", "fraudelent", > "occasioanaly" > | > "anomolies" or "beleive" except a fraudulent troll. > | > > | Nice to see you contributing in the usual fashion Andro. > | > Thank you, Vince. Not nice to see you attributing someone else's words > to me, especially when you are that someone else. I did? Sorry Andro I didn't know I did that. However, it is quite > easy to detect something I've written versus something you've written > by the quantity of spelling errors you make. Have you considered getting > a spelling checker? They are free, you know. Or you should. > Yes, you are right. I recently reinstalled this opperating system and haven't installed one yet. I guess it is a little disrespectful and I will correct the situation forthwith. Regards, Vince
From: Androcles on 20 Jul 2010 05:52
"Vince Morgan" <vinhar(a)TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4c455371$0$25361$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... | | "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message | news:2681o.193531$9c1.141588(a)hurricane... | > | > "Vince Morgan" <vinhar(a)TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote in message | > news:4c450585$0$7966$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... | > | | > | "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message | > | news:Rv71o.191599$NM4.59145(a)hurricane... | > | > | > | > "Vince Morgan" <vinhar(a)TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote in message | > | > news:4c44fda8$0$3034$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... | > | > | > | > And a blind roach living in a cave can be convinced that there exists | > | > nothing other than the roaches, and the universal cave. Any number of | > | > experiments may be devised to prove it. If a roach of sufficient | esteem | > | > were to state it as fact, well, then who would dare suggest further | > | > investigation is required? If a sceptical roach were to mention that | he | > | > occasioanaly feels a breeze he would then be required to prove what a | > | > breese | > | > is first, and of course then the breeze would have to be replicated | on | > | > demand! The fact that he could not do this is then offered as proof | > that | > | > there is no such thing as a breeze in the whole universe/cave, and | that | > | he | > | > is clearly fraudelent in his claims about said breeze. | > | > Anyone else thereon who noticed a breeze quickly remembers the | > | humiliation | > | > of the first skeptical roach who would now be skuttling ahead of | Benj's | > | > broom at Burger King, if such a place were to exist in caveland. | > | > Knowing that everything you were taught works doesn't prove in the | > least | > | > that what you were not taught cannot! This seems to be rather | difficult | > | to | > | > understand, apparently. | > | > The fact is there are anomolies and the establishment has a track | > record | > | > of | > | > lambasting, or worse, anyone who will not forget that they do exist. | > | > I beleive that Richard Feynman once said "The exception tests the | > | > rule."and | > | > so, when we have anomolies we, we, ohhh, that's right, we ignore them | > as | > | > measurement errors and lambast the researcher. There is only one | > reality | > | > and that's the universal cave, but some just don't get it. | > | > Regards, | > | > Vince | > | > ========================================== | > | > Of course, nobody sane would write "breese", "fraudelent", | > "occasioanaly" | > | > "anomolies" or "beleive" except a fraudulent troll. | > | > | > | Nice to see you contributing in the usual fashion Andro. | > | | > Thank you, Vince. Not nice to see you attributing someone else's words | > to me, especially when you are that someone else. | I did? Sorry Andro I didn't know I did that. Yes, you did. Inappropriate snipping is the most common form of misattribution. If you are going to delete someone's words and replace them with your own you should delete their name also. ===================quote======================= "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:eacd5202-c45b-4c98-8fef-f6d09665bc67(a)q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... On Jul 16, 3:55 am, "Vince Morgan" <vin...(a)TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:66e09bb5-b6c9-4699-827c-e8553bf51425(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 15, 5:09 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > And a blind roach living in a cave can be convinced that there exists ===================unquote====================== Whatever it is about caves and blind Phuckwit Ducks that fascinates you, I didn't write anything on the subject. I should warn you that Phuckwit Duck is a self-declared troll, incapable of reasoned argument. quote/ I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment. I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking reveals the true interest in the proposal. While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it straight, and then make progress from there. I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better, my heart does not. [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to appear] PD /unquote "I've lost interest. Foam and blather and waste all the time you want. You're not getting anywhere." -- Phuckwit Duck (Meaning "I lost that argument, those grapes are sour".) Ref: d23006a4-4a88-4efb-b1f4-12b11539952c(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com "You are not entitled to be educated. Someone who insists on being willfully ignorant does not deserve to be dissuaded. Nobody owes you anything. Nobody *should* do anything for you. It's your choice to learn or not to learn."-- Phuckwit Duck Ref: 571b8ace-cca8-4392-ba69-0a328320ad62(a)o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com | However, it is quite | > easy to detect something I've written versus something you've written | > by the quantity of spelling errors you make. Have you considered getting | > a spelling checker? They are free, you know. Or you should. | > | Yes, you are right. I recently reinstalled this opperating system and | haven't installed one yet. I guess it is a little disrespectful and I will | correct the situation forthwith. | Regards, | Vince | | |