Re: Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.

On Oct 6, 10:41 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
PD wrote on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 06:43:11 -0700:

You are under the ethical obligation, once you start to attack to the
person who choose one solution to the problems.

Nonsense. Wherever did you make up such a rule of conduct? Yes, I know
that you would like it a whole lot better if the world operated the way
you want it to.

There are several ethical codes of conduct at use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct

Yes, I see that. I don't see any of these that obligate one to provide
solutions to questions that you pose, regardless whether that one has
started to attack the person that has chosen one solution to the
problems. Perhaps you can point out which of these has that rule. Is
it by any chance the Moral Code of the Builder of Communism?


Canonical is here

http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/identityzone/conduct.html

Well, of course, you have the option of creating your own society,
based on rules of conduct that you have created, and to which you self-
publish articles about solutions you have chosen to questions that you
have asked. I have no idea what you expect the size of that society to
grow to.


APS and ACS has their owns.

But I remark again next point: nobody in moderated
sci.physics.foundations is doing the kind of scary comments, insults,
and insinuations are being done by the only three persons replying
here. And one is a banned troll and the other a well-known crackpot.

And I remark that the fact that only three people have chosen to reply
to your post here should also tell you something about the value of what
it is you are posting.

The question is not the number (3) but *who*: A well-known crackpot who
think that energy in SR is negative and imaginary, a banned troll who
likes to falsify ratings and archives, and you.

Well, I for one think that the number is important.
If you publish a book, and three and only three people buy the book
and send you comments on it: one a well-known crackpot, one a troll
that falsify ratings, and me, then what does that tell you about the
quality or appeal of your book?


About values, well, being an *announcement*, it was waited no reply at
all. Just as is happening in moderated newsgroup spf.

Which in turn relates to the
comment I made about self-publication always being an option for an
author who sees value in his own work where others do not.

This is another comment from you in the middle between a lie and one
insult.

Well, I've already asked you whether that is to mean neither one, and
you haven't answered. Where is the lie in what I've stated?

PD
.

Quantcast