Re: Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.

PD wrote on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:13:09 -0700:

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.

How many codes you studied? Zero?

Anyone who understood at least one of them knows they are general
guidelines for acceptable conduct, not a list of dumb rules for each
specific case of abuse that one may imagine.

In any case, the question is that you attacked one solution but continue
refusing to provide an alternative when you are asked to do that. This is
very unfair!

(snip)


APS and ACS has their owns.

But you will never be criticizing those...

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?

But you start from false assumptions: that a book is the same than a
announcement (it is not, of course), that number is synonym of quality
(quality and popularity are not synonyms), that only three read (this is
plain false)...

The question is that only a well-known crackpot, a troll that falsify
ratings, and you, are posting silly comments and lies about an
announcement.

This does not happen in sci.physics.foundations for example. Is a
causality that none of three is posting in that moderated newsgroup?

(...)

The announcement news is here

http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone
/canonicalsciencetoday/20081001.html

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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
    ... he wouldn't know anything about "sound quality" if you put a ... life is devoted to speaking AGAINST the high end audio community on ... to defend his knowledge of "sound quality" leaves you with as much ... troll, by definition. ...
    (rec.audio.tech)
  • Re: (Going Fast!) Rotisserie AWESOME
    ... If you order quality you get more quality... ... has been bitching about playfield rotisseries for the last 4 years. ... Once again you turned a nice thread into a troll fest to feed your ... Because YOU bought the rotisserie you think everyone should. ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Re: (Going Fast!) Rotisserie AWESOME
    ... If you order quality you get more quality... ... has been bitching about playfield rotisseries for the last 4 years. ... Once again you turned a nice thread into a troll fest to feed your ... Because YOU bought the rotisserie you think everyone should. ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Re: How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
    ... he wouldn't know anything about "sound quality" if you put a ... life is devoted to speaking AGAINST the high end audio community on ... to defend his knowledge of "sound quality" leaves you with as much ... troll, by definition. ...
    (rec.audio.tech)
  • Re: How safe operating an amp with no fuse?
    ... wouldn't know anything about "sound quality" if you put a gun to his ... to speaking AGAINST the high end audio community on usenet. ... This is because you are a troll, ...
    (rec.audio.tech)
Quantcast