Is Gorgonous Spaming The Forum With All The Crank

Gorgonous has gone ballistic, she's on a crusade to flood the forum with all the crankers that have "internet-published" theories. The crankier, the better. Started rather slowly, with Milo Wolff but now she's gone to India, France, Russia, all in one day.....she's on a roll.
No theory of your own, Gorgonous? Surely you could cook up something.

This post has been edited by Trout on Jul 23 2008, 11:36 PM

My, you are crumbling easily, fishy!


Perhaps anything at all to do with waves should be banned according to the church of trout, eh?





g.

No theory of your own? Come on, you sure are capable of something really cranky.

I have a theory that trout is scared of waves!

Can't be much sadder than a fishy that can't swim!



g.

A measure of your 'debunking' accuracy, I think!!

Careful, it looks like you're morphing into mott.carl!



I just 'god'da thank you guys for one o the most side-splittin' nights o my loif!



g.

This post has been edited by Gorgeous on Jul 23 2008, 11:48 PM

First Farsight, then Squeeze, then Neil Farbstein, now Gorgeous? I think there's a new desease spreadin on this forum. A desease who's primary sympton is the inability to respond to criticisms with anythin but insults... Better put on yer gas masks.

Fer the record? I voted "Yes."

The spam is actually the "battle of the childest" this forum is ridden with. It might have been tolerable if just the fanboys posted, but it is now also dominated by lamentable posts such as this one. The saddest thing is that the topic creator is the one who is supposed to represent the "reasonable" side, but in the topic title one already notices that he's back to his infant stages. These forums might not be dead, but they are clearly in a zombie state.

First off, I'm not defending anyone but myself with a vote of yes here.
I'm voting yes because when I went to view the most recent (including a thread I was part of and learning from ;' wave particle duality'), there was Milo Wolf again.
I have heard this before (asa in some references Good Elf made (I've read 'Speakable and Unspeakable ...') and it's an interesting topic, but it's not the only topic here. Milo wolf does not address the topic title 'Wave particle duality of light', so I'd rather not hear him there just because he needs to be heard. I watched his video and it made me cringe a bit because he sounded like a old friend of mine who could barely read and write at a high school level,, correcting me over something that I taught him about Relativity. He would think over what I said, and without reading a single other reference, he would say something about how it could be "...." (something that he ruminated himself). Wolf says something about how he took a "graduate level" quantum mechanics course and figured this out. Without a back round in classical physics (EM, wave mechanics ...) and Relativity, how can he claim to have fixed things he knows nothing about?
I'm not closed to the idea that particles do not exist, but there are other, more pressing issues about inertial matter (LHC might find some things to investigate). I, personally, would rather not see every thread Wolfed.
Peace,
Ron

Once again you are off the mark here. Criticism is one of the most valuable tools available to science. Whereas something disguised as criticism, but actually just a few shallow comments made from the position of feeling right by default, is an attitude toward corruption.

How do you respond to criticism? How about when confonted with a small deceit of yours? Go out to deflect attention by accusing the other person of being a sockpuppet or something? You're taking the piss out of this forum, and science too.

here's my list of those who misuse their stay here, and pretend their abuse is no more than valid criticism - NOM, theDoc, YOU, and the rather insignificant cuss boys that appear now and again. A more pleasent forum would be in the making if your sort toned their holier than thou "I'm right, you can't take criticism" and "I can call you what I like" BS .

For the record I voted NO, because the word "crank" is already seen as an absolute in this case. The OP is not valid. It is an insult not a question.

Ya've yet to demonstrate that I've ever 'been off the mark', son...

Did I not point out WSM's lack o peer review in my very first post? Did I not voice my agreement with Trout, bm1957, prometheus, Trippy an even Euler when they commented on problems with the theory?
So how is it that my comments about WSM were not criticisms, but "something disguised as criticism, but actually just a few shallow comments made from the position of feeling right by default..."?

1. I ask myself why it's been levelled against me.
2. I ask myself if that is a valid reason. If so, I proceed to 3a. If not, I proceed to 3b.
3a. I accept it, act as if havin my errors pointed out didn't bother me one bit (though o course, it did) an change my stance to reflect my updated views.
3b. I ask myself why this person thought it were a valid reason. If the answer is understandable, I proceed to 4a. If it is not, I proceed to 4b.
4a. I calmly explain myself an the reasons fer my views.
4b. I make fun o the idiot.

So far, on this board, I end up at 4b more often than any other. In my real life, I prolly end up at either 3a or 4a most often.

I ask fer proof o that deciet.

I've responded to people callin me BDW here, I've responded to yer claims that I am BDW. How is that "deflectin attention"? Maybe if I'd acted different in those regards, my accusations against you could be construed as that, but I didn't.
An YOU admitted it, unless ya think claimin to have known all along what N O M just guessed after he called ya Squish ain't an admission...

There's the insult I been waitin fer!

Ignorin problems with yer favorite theory, insultin anyone who dares to point em out, pretendin to know more than ya really know, these things don't bother ya? They bother me.

No, if it were an insult it would be "Gorgon is a crank, right?" Not "Is Gorgon spammin this thread with crank theories?"

Let's just say Mpants, AKA BDW, that you like to go around being a self proclaimed crankbuster, for the sake of preserving "correct" science. I prefer being a bully-buster, for the sake of preventing emotional distress and sometimes suicide.

It's ok, doing your thing with me, I got the mental capacity to keep coming back. Some people are deeply hurt by bullying.

You think I actually care that you changed your name from BDW to whatever it is now, and you obviously hid it well enough with the introduction of some hillbilly? I don't. I'm going to tell the next person that comes here and starts getting the heavy treatment from you and any others, not to take it seriously, you're just bully boys that seem to think they have a right to cross the line because they are protecting their sacred science.

Maybe what would be nice for physorg won't happen. The reward is in the struggle.

Oh:

I don't think it's right to accept that Trout is successfully identifying cranks. He's mentioned a few names, called them cranks, then asked if Gorgeous is spamming. I can accept that in a nazi court of law that would probably be enough, but not here mate. Here we're more open minded right? We don't want no blind followers, we're at a science forum right? This ain't jes a religious forum ya know.

I voted "No" as she might have big tits.

Then yer removin responsibility fer that emotional distress an possible suicide from the pre-existing mental problem or immaturity which would elevate insults over the internet to the level o importance needed to cause that harm or suicide. This is akin to blamin the victim. After all, when you apply that same logic to the case o a pedophile rapin a 12 year old girl, ya shift the blame from the pedophile's disfunction to the little girl's overly-revealing outfit. By implyin that a normal human being would be driven to suicide or even measurable emotional distress over being insulted on the internet, yer left with the assumption that any normal man woulda raped that 12 year old girl in my analogy, after seein the way she was dressed.
That doesn't make sense, does it? It's not the girl's fault she got raped, no matter how she was dressed. This is the 21st century, little girls have the right to wear whatever their parents'll let em wear.
Well, this is the 21st century, as I said. I have a right to be harsh in my judgements, whatever the result, so long as those judgements can be justified.

I'm tempted to point out the various unintelligent things ya've said, in regards to yer mental capacity, but I won't.

No. Plus, I don't care whether or not ya care. I don't care whether or not ya really believe I am BDW. I don't care whether or not ya blow yer brains out tomorrow an write a suicide note blamin it all on me. The only thing I care about with regards to you is that yer unreasoning, illogical, hypocritical an deceitful attack on me an others like me gets responded to with the logic an evidence that it lacks.

Should I be scared?

Considerin that he gives easy to understand an logically sound reasons fer his identification of the cranks here, I don't think it's right to dismiss them without invalidatin his reasons fer doin so.

I fixed it fer ya.

If yer initial summary o what Trout's doin was accurate, I'd agree with ya.

Thinkin with yer 'little brain' again, eh? Can't say as I blame ya...

THAT is a pile of dung. Shall we explore the amount of "normal" human beings that have been bullied and have , in a wreckless moment, taken their lives?

Then I'm sure you accept that your mannerisms will undoubtedly become the attention of many. And also whether you actually do justify your harsh judgments, is subject to opinion.

And what would that have to do with my ability to endure the kind of mental bullying I'm referring to?

Gosh, if you could really decipher what it is you're saying here man. That's what I'm hoping for really, that you catch a glimpse of what your present attitude really means in the scheme of things. So I am the one who is unreasoning, illogical, hypocritical and deceitful right? And becuss eoif that you have no compassion whatsoever. I could kill, myself and it wouldn't phase you at all. Becuase your harsh judgment is that I am unreasonable, hmmmmm, illogical, hmmmmmmmmmm, hypocritical. aaaahhhhhh, and decetful...splendid

I think we've gathered nothing phases you.

Well, I don't dislike you anywhere near as much as you think I do. Maybe when you reach mid life you may have come to see reason in a different light, and your role may not always be that of the harsh judgement maker. We all like to think we know our logic and rational don't we?

Yes. Do bring up a few cases o otherwise normal people reactin to bein bullied by takin their lifes. Keep in mind, "smart," "bright," "popular," an "friendly" ain't synonymous with "normal." I know some smart, bright, popular an friendly schizophrenic people.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=357797
I called DavidD an idiot. Can ya make a case that I didn't justify this?

Nothin. It was a subtle reference to the way ya treat me, versus the way I treat you. Apparently, ya didn't get it.

Are ya suggestin that I don't know what I'm sayin?

Ditto.

Right.

No, I don't care because yer not a friend, family member, coworker, or even particularly likable.

Not because, but that is my judgement of ya. Well, except fer "splendid."

Not quite. Ya managed to piss me off in the other thread ya like to argue with me in by sayin the stupidest things I ever read in yer posts, yet.

I doubt that, based on yer behavior here. An remember this: It was a third party, not me who accused you o cyberstalkin me, so I ain't the only one here who wouldn't take that claim at face value.

What makes ya think I ain't reached midlife already?

Yep. An a few o us are willin to work to be those things.

This post has been edited by MjolnirPants on Jul 24 2008, 09:26 PM