poll: should sputnick aka aristarchinexile be banned

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Smiling

Neufer said

I think the 16 wives would be:
"4 better or worse, 4 richer or poorer,
in sickness and in health . . . "

My wife is laughing her head off.

oops one more thing

Not Whitch but!!!!!! witch.

[makc]

Neufer said

I think the 16 wives would be:
"4 better or worse, 4 richer or poorer,
in sickness and in health . . . "

This makes 8 of them

[harry]

G'day Makc

Think again

Read between the lines.

[rstevenson]

Read between the lines.

The trouble with reading between the lines is that you have to make up all the words.

Rob

[aristarchusinexile]

so, should we ban him, or give him yet another warning? I count chris vote +1, and mark vote -1, the rest of you please post (for some reason real polls are disabled in the forum).

I don't vote one way or the other. I was just questioning the process by which he re-emerged under a new identity.

When my dog or horse doesn't behave, I engage in some training. I don't shoot them. On this forum, aggressive moderation is perhaps the best option. When silly, non-scientific stuff gets posted, it should just get deleted, and promptly. After spending some time producing a post only to have it disappear into the bit bucket (or even a black hole <g>), the training might start sinking in.

So, I see as in all true democracies the misrepresentation of voters.

I see Chris comparing me to a dog or horse (thanks for the flattery, Chris, I might have been angered if you had compared me to mankind) .. however, training is for ZBras, non for Z free Canuk's who use Z Zed.

[aristarchusinexile]

Perhaps we should ban someone else, like Neufer, for his Shakespeare stuff (no, that's a bad idea, too, Neufer is the life of the Party and light in the darkness, but we could perhaps at least persuade him to get involved with modern American writers like Mark Twain?)

Twain came in on a comet and went out on a comet.
That's too obvious an astronomical connection for my tastes.

I'm for banning Sputnik but keeping aristarchusinexile.

You are, as always, a gentleman and scholar, Neuf .. and I wish I could take credit for the Twain Comet, but that was either non-local instinct, suppressed memory, pure Luck, or demonstration of the Spirit bringing to mind the things we have need of. But what have you got against poor Sputnick?

[aristarchusinexile]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Smiling

Neufer said

I think the 16 wives would be:
"4 better or worse, 4 richer or poorer,
in sickness and in health . . . "

My wife is laughing her head off.

oops one more thing

Not Whitch but!!!!!! witch.

Harry, just think how wondeful it would be to have 16 wives laughing their heads off at your attempts to make them all happy. I'm glad you have one who laughs.

[aristarchusinexile]

<<Bird banding (also known as bird ringing) is an aid to studying wild birds, by attaching a small individually numbered metal or plastic ring to their legs or wings, so that various aspects of the bird's life can be studied by the ability to re-find the same individual later. This can include migration, longevity, mortality, population studies, territoriality feeding behaviour, etc. In North America John James Audubon and Ernest Thompson Seton were pioneers although their method of marking birds was different from modern ringing. Audubon used silver threads the legs of young Eastern Phoebes in 1803 while Seton marked Snow Buntings in Manitoba with ink in 1882.

The earliest attempt to mark a bird was by one Quintus Fabius Pictor. This Roman officer, during the Punic Wars around 218-201 BC, was sent a swallow by a besieged garrison. He used a thread on its leg to send a message back. A knight interested in chariot races during the time of Pliny (AD 1) would take swallows to Volterra, 135 miles (217 km) away and release them with information on the race winners.>>

First Sputnick is a dog or horse, then a ZBra, now a bird. Lovely. All the better to fly.

[aristarchusinexile]

Hello All,

Every forum establishes parameters within which ideas or opinions are submitted and accepted. I have no doubt that with all the forums out there that thousands of individuals have been banned for one reason or another. Most of the forums state the same requirements for being a member in good standing and rarely veer from them.

That being said, there are other considerations such as using publicly accessible terminals and taking the selfish risk of being a poster responsible for getting public accessibility to an internet forum denied if the IP address triggers a big fat "ACCESS DENIED". And I'm sure there are forums that get caught in the middle because of being sensitive to this fact. I believe it to be unfair play to use public computers as a shield. Different name, different terminal-very difficult indeed.

Now, Hello aristarchusinexile,

I would not like you to be aristarchusinpermanentexile.

However, you say that you already are in the know about the workings of the Cosmos and have your set (and stated) beliefs on the matter. That being the case them I would think that very little would be gained here that would augment what you say is the truth of real workings of Cosmology, a waste of one's time in fact if it were me. If that is the case then only a fool would stay on and needlessly continue to hammer away and criticize mainstream science, which is what this Forum is based on.

If the guidelines for posting comments within the format are unagreeable to you then, after a year or so now of testing the waters of change without success, maybe it would be wiser and more prudent, especially for you and because of the public-use computers, to move on.

Ari, believe me when I say that I deeply regret these statements although I feel them to be sensible and correct. This Forum has a format for member discussion and no one person's opinion can or will change it. Your ideas are interesting and stimulating but with them come an undercurrent of cynicism and sometimes barbed comments about the status quo often enough to become distracting.

I mean, when humanity runs out of science spirituality begins. It's probably always been so.
Spirituality and spiritual comments are fine-nothing wrong with them whatsoever- But not here on this Forum, please. And since, like your particular viewpoints of what you believe to be the real truth behind the workings of the Universe, matters revolving around esoteric ideas keep appearing as if to convince the members of your valid certainty of what's really going on which in turn invalidates other more empirical endeavors. If you know for sure then BRAVO for you. But your disregard of this Forum's rules time and again leaves me no choice but to concur with a vote to ban you. I'm very, very, very sorry, aristarchus......................

Astro, your post is remarkable in its composition. Well done. However, to support Sputnick and esoteric ideas which reappear, I suggest you remind the Big Bangers of their theory's tremendous shortfalls and assumptions, and request BB's supporters not mention (BB) again, unless, as in the past, BB is accompanied with a url such as this one http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000003/ which point to her stellar qualities.

So, as far as I can count, but of course my math being hindered by my not being a mathematician, the vote is supportive of making Sputnick chief moderator, at a high salary. I support this motion, and suggest, despite knowing his modesty, say, $10,000,000,000 as a sum reflective of his value to the forum.

[neufer]

<<Bird banding (also known as bird ringing) is an aid to studying wild birds, by attaching a small individually numbered metal or plastic ring to their legs or wings, so that various aspects of the bird's life can be studied by the ability to re-find the same individual later. This can include migration, longevity, mortality, population studies, territoriality feeding behaviour, etc. In North America John James Audubon and Ernest Thompson Seton were pioneers although their method of marking birds was different from modern ringing. Audubon used silver threads the legs of young Eastern Phoebes in 1803 while Seton marked Snow Buntings in Manitoba with ink in 1882.

The earliest attempt to mark a bird was by one Quintus Fabius Pictor. This Roman officer, during the Punic Wars around 218-201 BC, was sent a swallow by a besieged garrison. He used a thread on its leg to send a message back. A knight interested in chariot races during the time of Pliny (AD 1) would take swallows to Volterra, 135 miles (217 km) away and release them with information on the race winners.>>

First Sputnick is a dog or horse, then a ZBra, now a bird. Lovely. All the better to fly.

If you were actually banned then we wouldn't be able to keep track of
your migration, longevity, mortality, or territoriality feeding behaviour.


Pegasus with the foal Equuleus next to it, as depicted in Urania's Mirror,
a set of constellation cards published in London c.1825.
The horses appear upside-down in relation to the constellations around them.

[aristarchusinexile]

Pegasus with the foal Equuleus next to it, as depicted in Urania's Mirror,
a set of constellation cards published in London c.1825.
The horses appear upside-down in relation to the constellations around them.

"I fail to zee ZBra," said Pierre.

[apodman]

should we ban him, or give him yet another warning?

Neither. It's not worth your time, and it's not a picnic without the ants.

I sincerely regret the post quoted above. A vote for not banning this arrogant irritating overactive menace is a vote for nonsense. I change my vote to banishment. Beam him into deep space with maximum dispersion so his molecules can never reassemble.

[Rocky Planet]

Everyone knows I'm really apodman, and therefore my vote shouldn't count, but the offending individual is so irritating that I'm going to vote anyway. The fact that he suffers from CRI wins him no sympathy. It seems that Sputnick/mopedtothemoon/IPRider/aristarchusinexile and Beratis/Kesla/Redjac aren't the only ones with more than one identity.

Here is my vote: Ban Sputnick by all the names he will ever have. I agree 100% with apodman on maximum dispersion.

Bystander once asked me the purpose for the Rocky Planet identity. I gave him a truthful but incomplete answer. Sputnick posted to the Favorite APOD topic that stays at the top of the list for all to see. Every time I went to the Discuss an APOD forum, there was Sputnick's offensive name staring me in the face. I kept hoping someone else would post and give me a better name to look at, but finally I couldn't stand it any longer and posted a Favorite APOD myself. So you all have me to thank and now, as Paul Harvey always said, you know the rest of the story.

The real Sputnik fell from orbit a few months after its launch. It was setting an example to be followed.

[astrolabe]

Hello All,

The challenge made by makc:

"if for some reason you have no balls to speak here, send me pm, I will list you as "anonymous coward"."

was, I felt, not meant as a joke. It probably wasn't the best approach to garner responses for what I would consider a fairly serious motion but I have read the subsequent posts and it seems obvious that out of 2,000 or so members the poll appears to have collapsed.

Now I'm a little on in years and have risen to many challenges and experienced adversities like anyone else and in none of the events was I ever an anonymous coward. I posted my opinion (and that's all that it is) in good faith because after learning what I have from this Forum I feel a certain responsibility to it to help maintain quality of content as well as a healthy Q and A environment- if I can.

Does this mean that I have the "balls to speak"? Not really because, like aristarchusinexile, I don't honestly care what others in this or any other Forum think of me- ari understands this I'm sure AND that none of my post in this thread (if that's what it is) was personal. I did not attack him in any way, just told it how I saw it for the record. He honestly likes this Forum very much as well as the members in it as do I. However he also understands that he is out of line because he is anything but stupid; I wish I had a 170 IQ! I also appreciated the tone of his reply.

So, in closing, (ari) while the BB is only a theory, it has passed more tests and predictions than any other so far. Good enough for me, eh? Can't honestly say that for things esoteric, or ethereal, or even philosophical. Do I entertain other ideas? Of course! But they don't avail me as much as mainstream.

[aristarchusinexile]

Here down under we call it whitch hunt.

And what, pray tell, is a whitch, is that something like a snipe?

Which Witch is whitch?

Found within the 'snipe' url. http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Art

[aristarchusinexile]

"... in none of the events was I ever an anonymous coward."

Please don't be so hard on yourself, Astro.

"... like aristarchusinexile, I don't honestly care what others in this or any other Forum think of me."

I do care what others think of me, Astro, I really do. I just can't help being offensive. Rest assured, though, we all think well of you.

"I wish I had a 170 IQ!"

Read more, retest, repeat the process until you achieve the desired result. It's remarkably easy, unless the newer tests include complex problem solving like how to tie shoelaces before first morning coffee.

"I also appreciated the tone of his reply."

Thanks, Astro.

"So, in closing, (ari) while the BB is only a theory, it has passed more tests and predictions than any other so far. Good enough for me, eh? Can't honestly say that for things esoteric, or ethereal, or even philosophical. Do I entertain other ideas? Of course! But they don't avail me as much as mainstream.

Au Contraire, Monsieur Mon Ami (Being Canadian, I can't help pretending I know some French) .. BB fails the test of each new discovery, so new inventions have to be added to the theory to make it fit the discoveries (Inflation, DM, DE are good examples). But my purpose here is not to disprove BB as BB disproves itself.

[aristarchusinexile]

Beam him into deep space with maximum dispersion so his molecules can never reassemble.

Ah, a subtle approach to promoting Spirit, Apodman. Well done.

[aristarchusinexile]

The fact that he suffers from CRI wins him no sympathy.

Hard heartedness is no virtue, Rock. What, pray tell, is CRI?

[aristarchusinexile]

Did we all tire of laughing at me at the same time, or is it just me? It's difficult to laugh when your landlord is attempting a rip off of a month's rent. I hope you are all sympathetic.

[Rocky Planet]

Having a blatantly incorrect view is often characterized as having one's head in a specific location that provides zero visibility. Such a position can only be achieved through difficult unnatural contortion. The medical term for the debilitating condition that produces the required contortion is cranial rectal inversion (CRI).

[astrolabe]

Hello aristarchusinexile,

astrolabe wrote:
"... in none of the events was I ever an anonymous coward."

Please don't be so hard on yourself, Astro.

Not at all, just stating a simple fact.

"... like aristarchusinexile, I don't honestly care what others in this or any other Forum think of me."

I do care what others think of me, Astro, I really do. I just can't help being offensive. Rest assured, though, we all think well of you.

So?

Astrobright wrote:
"I wish I had a 170 IQ!"

Read more, retest, repeat the process until you achieve the desired result. It's remarkably easy, unless the newer tests include complex problem solving like how to tie shoelaces before first morning coffee.

Since I'm virtually 100% caffeinated 100% of the time I should do OK. Semper Paratus

Astropal wrote:
"I also appreciated the tone of his reply."

Thanks, Astro.

Don't mention it.

AstroRaftafarian wrote:
"So, in closing, (ari) while the BB is only a theory, it has passed more tests and predictions than any other so far. Good enough for me, eh? Can't honestly say that for things esoteric, or ethereal, or even philosophical. Do I entertain other ideas? Of course! But they don't avail me as much as mainstream.

Au Contraire, Monsieur Mon Ami (Being Canadian, I can't help pretending I know some French) .. BB fails the test of each new discovery, so new inventions have to be added to the theory to make it fit the discoveries (Inflation, DM, DE are good examples). But my purpose here is not to disprove BB as BB disproves itself.

Theories can't be proven. But show me any theory that CANNOT disprove itself or be disproven and then one may be on to something. I think you need to read AstroRastafarian's quote two or three times more, then get back to me.

BTW, thank you for your responses, ari!

[aristarchusinexile]

Having a blatantly incorrect view is often characterized as having one's head in a specific location that provides zero visibility. Such a position can only be achieved through difficult unnatural contortion. The medical term for the debilitating condition that produces the required contortion is cranial rectal inversion (CRI).

But, Mr. Rock, what if there was a flashlight in that specific tight place? That could theoretically eliminate zero visibility, providing the batteries are healthy, or there is space to shake one of those newfangled shakecharge lights. In any case, I am so happy that we aren't all tired of laughing at me .. life would be so boring: and laughter can tighten already tight places, which is especially good in special circumstances.

[aristarchusinexile]

Semper Paratus

I'm most glad that wasn't Distempered Papyrus, as that stuff makes reading dangerous.

BTW, thank you for your responses, ari!

Astrothankful, thou art most welcome, and genuine thank you for your kind support.

I seem to have become lost, though, as to what we are theoretically talking about, unless it's that a fact is not a theory, with an opinion that a theory must be disprovable, so can never be a fact, so of what value are theories? Or perhaps our discussion includes that we all have a right to express a wrong opinion, although so far on APOD I have chosen not to exercise that option .. it is comforting to know I have the opportunity, though, as anything is possible. By the way, an address change is delaying my CanoeTiki voyage, which accounts for my continued annoyance on APOD.

[astrolabe]

Hello ariheyederdahl,

I seem to have become lost, though, as to what we are theoretically talking about, unless it's that a fact is not a theory

Well done my little raft buddy! And all this time I thought you weren't capable of seeing it. I was, it would seem now, mistaken.

with an opinion that a theory must be disprovable, so can never be a fact,

Whew! Nice going.

an address change is delaying my CanoeTiki voyage, which accounts for my continued annoyance on APOD.

I didn't think one needed an address to sail with the whales. Maybe the Can Tiki is waiting for fair winds.

[Chris Peterson]

I seem to have become lost, though, as to what we are theoretically talking about, unless it's that a fact is not a theory, with an opinion that a theory must be disprovable, so can never be a fact, so of what value are theories?

That a theory can't be proven seems certain. In the ideal case a theory can be disproven, but in practice that may not always be the case. I think the best way of looking at things is that a theory provides a model that can explain observations, and any theory accumulates evidence that either appears to support it or appears to contradict it. That weight of evidence is then considered by those with the education, ability, or training to reasonably evaluate it, and the theory's position in the scheme of things gets adjusted. It may become so well supported as to be virtually fact (general relativity), supported strongly enough that few doubt that the theory is substantively correct (the Big Bang and anthropogenic global warming are examples of that which have been discussed here recently), considered very speculative but worthy of additional study (string theory), or considered so unlikely as to be "false", and not worth further study (most plasma cosmology). How can there not be value in such an intellectual framework?