Re: new USENET guidelines (was: massless or massive photon?)

On Jul 16, 12:39 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter M. Brown wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:47:58 -0400:

Peter M. Brown wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:47:58 -0400:



"Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" <juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:pan.2008.07.15.08.30.00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cosmik de Bris wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:28:25 +1200:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:13:49 +1200, Eric Gisse wrote (in article
<425617bb-4b25-4c6d-9839-cb9b1c8ba...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez wrote:

[snip whatever]

I'm not going through that giant whine fest.

Eric, let Juan and Pete go, they don't contribute anything to this
group and you have. You may be a little brash at times but I've learnt
a lot from you. It's funny how Juan and Pete have dismissed and
insulted the intelligence of the most knowledgeable people on this
group and just dogmatically asserted their falsehoods with no proof.
Put your time into those who want to learn.

Cheers.

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

Then welcome to the list of people who did learn from Eric the next
nonsense

(\blockquote
No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/
c^2 ].
)

Juan - Why are you conversing with people like Cosmik de Bris, Eric and
Dono. Each has proven that they are not worth conversing with? That's
why I blocked each a while back.

Pete

Hi, Pete. Let me explain that.

When I read nonsenses, insults, and other nasty messages from people like
Bilge, Dono (then Karandash2), Eric, Tom... I prepared a group of
guidelines

http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html

with recommendations. I know that the recommendation to ignore nasty
comment is difficult to follow sometimes. Also the recommendations to
ignore nasty posters didn't work as waited.

It only worked for the more beginner trolls, who after a time being
ignored not more reply you, but it didn't worked for trolls of poor
species as Eric and Dono.

Crackpot Dono has continued with lies, insults, and /ad hominems/ during
more than a year probably believing he could say *anything* he want
without waiting a reply from my part.

Crackpot Eric has continued to invent mistakes in my posts in his usual
pathetic style. When I ignored his insults, lies, and nonsenses in
sci.physics.relativity then he followed me to sci.physics.foundations and
sci.physics.research. To my surprise their posts passed moderation and
were posted in sci.physics.foundations!

I initially ignored Eric nonsense and /ad hominem/ on s.p.f but some
people complained about Eric messages and his usual attacks on me, and
then one discussion started in that moderated newsgroup this year, with
one moderator calling attention to "Mr. Gisse" in public:

(\blockquote
At this point I would just ask Mr. Gisse (and all) to please try to be
more polite and diplomatic in their replies.
)

Then was when I really considered the idea of changing the guidelines and
react to the permanent attacks, lies, straw man, misreadings...

The issue was how react to attacks, noticing the crackpots to novice
readers, and still maintaining the noise to a minimum all at once? This is
difficult but I think I have some ideas about that. I have discussed this
off-line with other posters of moderated and non-moderated groups. For
example Murray Arnow from sci.physics.research has provided me a guideline
is now introduced in the new version.

I am now preparing that new version of the USENET guidelines and will be
updated in a few days.

The new guidelines introduce new tactics to beat the trolls and the
crackpots and unlike the previous version also introduce examples of nasty
content. As promised before I introduce samples of nasty content from Tom
Roberts, Eric, and Dono.

For example the guidelines now include Eric above nonsense

(\blockquote
No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2
].
)

and also his arrogant "Yea but I'm smarter than both of you. By such a
wide margin it boggles the mind".

Like example of the kind of nasty troll you can find on online discussion..

Also as noticed here recently

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/brief-presentation-of-
canonical-science.html

a future Micro-thought will be "Some samples of USENET fauna"

There I will cite many examples and links to nasty content.

Crackpot Eric *mistakes* and obvious *nonsenses* (both plural).

Crackpot Dono writing nonsense and next deleting his message from Groups
and then starting a lie about all that without noticing that his nonsense
even after deleted from Groups is still archived in other servers

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html

Daryl 'bad faith' and mistakes...

Tom Roberts perennial straw man and lies...

--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) http://canonicalscience.org

Hi Juan,

Don't forget to include in your guidelines how the
troll Dono does thousands of fake rates to posts,
exploiting that feature from google groups,

:-)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: new USENET guidelines (was: massless or massive photon?)
    ... When I read nonsenses, insults, and other nasty messages from people like ... Bilge, Dono, Eric, Tom... ... Thus my recent blocking of Dono, Oh no, and Eric Gisse. ... Crackpot Dono writing nonsense and next deleting his message from Groups ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Recommendations for effective online scientific discussion
    ... nasty behaviors on the USENET. ... But the whole thread got full of noise, once Eric, Dono and others nasty ... I had simply ignored because I recommended to ignore nonsense. ... When you correct some of their mistakes, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Dono, the most despicable crackpot trolling the forum also trolls the Wikipedia now
    ... mechanics, relativity... ... Wikipedia and then cite the article he had modified with another ... I waited all kind of nonsense and childish behavior in this newsgroup. ... But, sincerely, I never imagined that dono could write such nonsense ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Recommendations for effective online scientific discussion
    ... nasty behaviors on the USENET. ... but without participating in further discussion, maintaining noise to ... ratings for promoting ad hominem. ... don't see now reason for which I may ignore nonsense as that of above ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Great SWT Program
    ... None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at ... Nonsense is nonsense, no matter what you call it. ... if you've learned to use a hammer for hitting and removing nails, ... That's like comparing a word processor to a text editor, ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)