Starship Asterisk*

apodman wrote:There is so much to criticize

You are too kind. Does anyone reading this not know that Apodman wrote the post to me, and that the rest of this post which I am posting contains quotes only by Apodman and no other poster?

=Apodman "and so little time. But, my friend Sputnick, I have to jump on the bandwagon

I never heard the music but it doesn't sound very pleasant from this perspective.

and ask the same of you that others have[/code]

Apodman, please be specific as to who the others are and what they are asking or I have no idea what you're talking about.

Please take the time to edit your quotes properly. It is difficult to follow anything when attributions are all mixed up in identity, style, nesting, and leftover unmatched bbcode, so please take care to get the identities right and try to stick with one style of attribution within a single post. I would appreciate it.

I'm doing the best I know how to do - I have no trouble following my own posts or reading what others are responding when they quote me. I don't even know what a bbcode is. Attribution to who? I really don't know what you're talking about concerning style. Nesting I understand. If I answer one person's post to me, like this one, I should not have to repeat your name at the start of every sentence - or should I? Certainly forum users know who made the post to me.

I really fail to see problem ... I haven't any difficulty following posts and I'm 61 years old with poor vision and limited computer time. But I shall try to make it easier for those who may be in worse condition than myself. I'll look at this post to you and see if I see any glaring problems. Do I have to attribute each answer to myself? Probably not, eh .. everyone should know that I'm the one doing the answering. However, having been totally unaware of any problems which this post brings up I am at a state of small confusion about what makes sense around here and what doesn't. I've had to edit out a lot of what was originally written in the post to which I'm responding to make it fit the three quotes to the nest rule .. which is why the stuff that disappeared, disappeared.

Sputnick wrote:Apodman, please be specific as to who the others are and what they are asking or I have no idea what you're talking about.

makc at least twice fixed your quotes and made a point of it.
bystander at least once fixed your quotes and made a point of it.
others as well have made a point of it.

Making a mess of quotations and making no effort to learn to do better is just one of many ways you show a lack of respect for all the others in this forum.

apodman wrote:

Sputnick wrote:Apodman, please be specific as to who the others are and what they are asking or I have no idea what you're talking about.

makc at least twice fixed your quotes and made a point of it.
bystander at least once fixed your quotes and made a point of it.
others as well have made a point of it.

Making a mess of quotations and making no effort to learn to do better is just one of many ways you show a lack of respect for all the others in this forum.

I have also fixed others' posts and never once mentioned it. Your accusation of not trying to learn to use the mechanisms of this forum properly, as well as your accusation of a lack of respect for others on this forum is totally objectionable .. and uncharacteristic of you, Apodman. This Bullshit and I use that word plainly is coming simply because I refuse to cave into demands that I agree with everything posted here concerning the Big Bang. I will repeat .. I am not in this to present religion, but I refuse for scientific reasons to believe the Big Bang. You know, I never joined clubs or groups because I had instincts about mob mentality . . and the more time I try to fit into discussion groups the more I see the reality of mob mentality. Forum moderators should discourage it .. not be part of it.

Sputnick wrote:I have also fixed others' posts and never once mentioned it. Your accusation of not trying to learn to use the mechanisms of this forum properly, as well as your accusation of a lack of respect for others on this forum is totally objectionable .. and uncharacteristic of you, Apodman. This **** and I use that word plainly is coming simply because I refuse to cave into demands that I agree with everything posted here concerning the Big Bang. I will repeat .. I am not in this to present religion, but I refuse for scientific reasons to believe the Big Bang. You know, I never joined clubs or groups because I had instincts about mob mentality . . and the more time I try to fit into discussion groups the more I see the reality of mob mentality. Forum moderators should discourage it .. not be part of it.

Moderator hat on:

You can not fix others posts. Only the OP or a moderator can edit posts. And yes, makc and I are moderators. Nereid is the Administrator.

As for the rest, I think people have been very patient, but they are beginning to lose that patience. Nobody has asked you to cave in, they have asked you to listen to reason. But you seem to think that any idea you have should be taken as seriously as physicists with credentials (Nereid, Chris, Neufer), without any justification or substantiation. You have been asked to justify your reasoning and you respond with tirades like this or berating people (as with Chris using we). If you wish to be taken seriously, provide constructive criticism, justify your positions, substantiate your claims.

Moderator hat off:

Sorry, sputnick, but I think you are way out of bounds this time.

Hello Sputnick,

Sorry to see the direction this thread has taken. I haven't seen any demands that you cave in to the BBT. Personally, I'd say don't do it even if there were but you already know that. I could suggest that everyone take a breather but it's not my call. I wasn't ever a groupie either- I didn't show up for senior picture day at my high school, nor did I show up for the make-up day for those who were "sick" the first time. Consequence? Don't know-never bought the yearbook, I'm probably a blank spot. Who cares.

Point? It's perfectly okay to adhere to a different line of thinking but if, in its current process of evolution, it leaves more to the imagination than it has proven, regardless of Phd. supports or other credentials, intuition, or even logic, it must by default take a back seat. Sorry to say that but it's true. If one starts a thread witha propasal or an idea that has little or no real hard facts to go on then all the what ifs, what abouts, possiblies, and maybe ifs, amount to pointless fishing and even more pointless argument which often ends in accusations and personal attacts. Devolution of dialog is never pretty and makes it difficult to present valid facts because of an hostile climate.We're all capable of this and we are equally capable of the opposite.

Let cooler heads endure. Please.

Dan Drayer

astrolabe (2008 Nov 10) wrote:Hello Sputnick,

When you figure out how to use that pesky "Quote button" l-l-l-l-l-l-let me know. I'm a bit leary of buttons m'self in the new APOD post environment. 'Preciate ya bein' brave!

Okay, Sputnick, this was the first hint to you after we moved to phpBB3. Does this sound unfriendly? No. Does this sound like it's related at all to your viewpoints? No. Does it try to shift any criticism away from you personally? Yes. Do you see the "l-l-l-l-l"? That mirrors the appearance of your hacked up text when you try (or don't try) to use the quote feature. Your friend astrolabe was being gentle and offering personal help. Did you PM him and get the advice you needed? Apparently not. Subsequent requests (including mine) were also gentle, constructive, and unrelated to your viewpoints; you ignored them all. Can't you see the mess you make? Can't you see you're the only one? Can't you see you're acting like an ungrateful brat?

bystander wrote:

Sputnick wrote:I have also fixed others' posts and never once mentioned it. Your accusation of not trying to learn to use the mechanisms of this forum properly, as well as your accusation of a lack of respect for others on this forum is totally objectionable .. and uncharacteristic of you, Apodman. This **** and I use that word plainly is coming simply because I refuse to cave into demands that I agree with everything posted here concerning the Big Bang. I will repeat .. I am not in this to present religion, but I refuse for scientific reasons to believe the Big Bang. You know, I never joined clubs or groups because I had instincts about mob mentality . . and the more time I try to fit into discussion groups the more I see the reality of mob mentality. Forum moderators should discourage it .. not be part of it.

Moderator hat on:

You can not fix others posts. Only the OP or a moderator can edit posts. And yes, makc and I are moderators. Nereid is the Administrator.

I fixed their quotes when responding to them .. spelling, lack of space between words, etc .. things which make for confusion.

As for the rest, I think people have been very patient, but they are beginning to lose that patience. Nobody has asked you to cave in, they have asked you to listen to reason. But you seem to think that any idea you have should be taken as seriously as physicists with credentials (Nereid, Chris, Neufer), without any justification or substantiation. You have been asked to justify your reasoning and you respond with tirades like this or berating people (as with Chris using we). If you wish to be taken seriously, provide constructive criticism, justify your positions, substantiate your claims.

Moderator hat off:

Sorry, sputnick, but I think you are way out of bounds this time.

Tirade? Berating? Rather inflammatory words, don't you think, Bystander, and again, totally without foundation. My suggestion to Chris came after he used "we" several times to add unsubstantiated weight to his stance. We are also beginning to lose patience and for good reason. Chris says "You should not be reading books." What a strange statement by a supposedly educated person. Whether or not people want to take our position seriously is unimportant to us. We have a right to quote Einstein on his statement that it was time for physicists to embrace philosophy because knowledge had ground into confusion. We have a right to have that quote respected and not be accused of misrepresenting the quote, and we (Einstein and I and others) have a right not to be told by others that what Einstein said clearly was not what he said or meant .. so therefore we can only conclude that Einstein became a doddering old man ahlzeimers or something, right? Inflammatory! Petty! Genuinely disgusting! We all say so!

Sputnick said,
"and we (Einstein and I and others) have a right not to be told by others that what Einstein said clearly was not what he said or meant ."

But do other have the right not to be told by you what you think what Einstein think?

As for Einstein he was right sometime and wrong some other time.

He was:
-Right with GR.
-Wrong on his attempt to do the great unification.(He fail).

-Wrong when he said that it was impossible to extract the enormous amount of energy from matter. (Later the Atomic bomb, the H bomb and the nuclear reactor.) .(When he said that he was lacking the knowledge that "WE" acquired in the 40's.) So he change his mind in the 40's with the new knowledge acquired.

-Wrong when he want physicist to go philosophy cause "WE" would'nt have all the knowledge "WE" have now. (It's my opinion.) And it's obviously logic.

He would be amase and also trill to see all the great knowledge "WE" acquire since he pass out. He would certainly join us to pursue on the course of science "WE" are going now. (It is also my opinion and it is also logic.)

So now please dont tell me that i am wrong cause like you i dont want you to tell me that what i say is wrong. Cause i am right. Or am i? Gee!!!

-

apodman wrote:makc at least twice fixed your quotes and made a point of it.

I did it 4 times and then I gave up *sigh*

makc wrote:I did it 4 times and then I gave up *sigh*

I, too, did it several times, when I had a hard time following who said what.

I support locking of What is Science? and Big Bang or Big Flush?, they have probably digressed past the point of saving, but can we keep this one open for awhile? I would like to see what Chris, Duom, Qev, et al, come up with for this water world, not to be confused with Waterworld.

bystander wrote:I support locking of What is Science? and Big Bang or Big Flush?, they have probably digressed past the point of saving.

If a non-mod may express an opinion, I think many might consider this the merciful thing to do. Re-reading long redundant crossed threads gets as old as that raft movie.

This topic has been locked with the pertinent post for liquid planet formation split off into Planetary Formation - Liquid planet for those of you wishing to continue that discussion.

Thanks, makc!