Re: Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.
- From: PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 05:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
On Oct 7, 2:03 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?
Actually, I graduated with a degree in philosophy, emphasis ethics.
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.
Yes, that was precisely my point. Your dumb rule doesn't seem to be
covered by any of these.
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!
According to you. But then again, you are inventing your own set of
conduct rules and expecting others to abide by them, social contract
or no.
(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 book was hypothetical for the purpose of looking at the
conclusions one might draw from a light reception. You can also
consider the conclusions one might draw from a light reception to an
announcement.
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.
What lies? You've made this comment several times and then backed off,
saying that the comments are somewhere between a lie and an insult.
Then you call them lies again, without explaining what is false about
the statement made. Calling something a lie that you know not to be a
lie, is in itself a lie and a violation of your own code of conduct --
you do know this, do you not?
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/canonicalscienceto...
--http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.
- From: Juan R.
- Re: Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.
- References:
- Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.
- From: Juan R.
- Re: Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.
- From: PD
- Re: Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.
- From: Juan R.
- Re: Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.
- From: The Draper family
- Re: Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.
- From: Juan R.
- Re: Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.
- From: PD
- Re: Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.
- From: Juan R.
- Re: Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.
- From: PD
- Re: Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.
- From: Juan R.
- Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.
- Prev by Date: Re: Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.
- Next by Date: Re: Contraction has been abolished by Special Relativity
- Previous by thread: Re: Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.
- Next by thread: Re: Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|