Re: Recommendations for effective online scientific discussion
- From: "hhc314@xxxxxxxxx" <hhc314@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 23, 8:47 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
pmparker6 wrote on Wed, 23 Jul 2008 04:24:34 -0700:
NOTE
[*] There is a documented case of a clearly perturbed individual who
has tried for close a year to falsify the Groups ratings about posters
adding hundred of negative stars and simulating the ratings of a
hundred of different readers. He achieved this by exploiting a
well-known bug in the Groups console.
This poster was once caught by a Groups administrator, and his fake
rates eliminated from the total rate. But that did not stop him. He
changed the nick, started a new account and continues trying to falsify
the archive.
This and other samples from crackpots like Eric Gisse, disorder trolls
as Dono (Karandash2), professional liars as Tom Roberts and others will
be presented, with details, dates, original messages, and links on a
future Micro-thought, "Some samples of USENET fauna", now in
preparation
Just to see how easy it was to set up another account I have just done
so. I notice that at one point you had one star against your posting
with 173 users. Google seem to have now corrected this.
Yes but Dono (Karandash2 account was banned) has continued to try to
falsify ratings in Groups during a year. Without noticing that his fake
ratings vanish in the air automatically after a while.
But he will try again to add dozens or hundred of fake votes. He is a
clearly perturbed individual.
How in the face
of this anyone can deny that "The Einstein Hoax" etc. is not organized I
just don't know. I am told I fantasize an on drugs etc. etc. but to me
the evidence is quite simply overwhelming.
I say this because the situation of one or two people having a "bee in
their bonnets" is very different from what we are facing in the
"Einstein Hoax".
What do you think about my above messages with recommendation about spam
by "Einstein hoax"? Would help?
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/
c114ab58f8f15805/28d66d74f516c916?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#28d66d74f516c916
Rand Simberg 112 you are vectored on this reference to 111.
Here is a speciman of Simbergus Dextrus horribilis. He goes on and on in
this vein.
BTW - The original posting (no 111) can in fact be answered by saying
that private America values trained intelligence. Public America does
not. The "Einstein Hoax" is a cover story for antigravity and the fact
that no reputable physicist was consulted at the time. No Arabist was
consulted over Iraq, so when Tom Potter talks about the cost of such
things as Gravity Probe B, Iraq is relevant. I reckon that far more
money was spent in Area 51 than was ever spent on Gravity Probes and
Dark Matter combined.
So 1 point for my nickname in the Einstein Cult index. It simply means
"student" in Arabic. The Einstein cult should really be called the
Public America anticult.
I will keep this account. It might be useful one day if I ever get
involved in measuring compression of different texts. I hope everyone
will join me in utterly comdemning the threats on the life of that
German professor I mentioned. We seem to be back in the time of Galileo..
- Ian Parker
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) http://canonicalscience.org- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I suppose that my suggestion would be simply to ignore obvousely troll
posts, time all followups to the the newsgroup on which you are
reading the post, and tend to ignore or refute (at your option) both
trolls and ridiculous assertions.
Something I have noticed is that most of the troll posts on
sci.physics crosspost to multiple newsgroups. This is the troll
posters method of attracting attention to himself, and his/her usually
ridiculous posts. So, if you are tempted to respond to one of these
posters, simply trim the followups to include only the newsgroup on
which you are reading the post.
Harry C.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Support a Energy Independence Forum
- Next by Date: Quantum Gravity 281.995: Some More Bivariate Distributions With Star Products
- Previous by thread: Roy Spencer testifies before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
- Next by thread: Quantum Gravity 281.995: Some More Bivariate Distributions With Star Products
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
