Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: witsend on 18/12/2009 07:17:51
-
Guys, you will notice that two of my threads have been locked. The one dealt with an article published some time back that described some experimental apparatus that crashes through conventional constraints determined by thermodynamic laws. When some of the contributors eventually cottoned on to the extent of the accreditation on this test they literally hounded me off the forum. I was likened to a 'talking coconut' - advised to get an education - laughed and - mocked - all with varying levels of articulation and effectiveness. NOT ONCE did BenV come to my rescue to advise the contributors that their posts were out of line. And this, notwithstanding that it defied the required standards in posting responsibility.
The second dealt with an earnest attempt to evaluate the responsibility of our academics to advance experimental evidence even if it conflicted with known scientific laws. I had tried 3 times prior to get this published. We've just submitted a 4th paper. This time our declared object is to advise the reading public of this breach and of the submission of yet another paper for review. The hope is that if the public are at least informed about the claim then they will also require the publication to be evaluated openly and fairly. So. I'm doing something that I feel is necessary. I'm alerting the public to a discovery that I feel it is their right to know.
But this thread too, carried an attack. Now I was told that I shout at cheese. That my english grammer is not perfect, that I am claiming perpetual motion, and on and on. This time, having had experience of prior attacks - I decided to defend myself. But this license to criticise the contributor also seems to carries a caveat on these forums. The contributor may not defend himself or herself under any circumstances but must exercise the utmost reason and constraint in the face of ad hominem - and may not retaliate even when it is obvious that the attack is unfair.
The one thing that 'sticks in the craw' so to speak - is this fact - not that the thread was locked. It's an enormous shame as the thread had a huge readership and people don't read what they're not interested in. But it's the removal of my drawing that I posted on youtube. I had done previous drawings. I'm going to post links to them all in due course but will only give a link here to those that refer to the following contributors. MileHigh, TK and Poynt99. I accused them of trolling and we had real fun in the banter that followed and none of the contributors took offense. I expected it to generate the same amusement here - as did my doggerel. Instead of which I find that my drawing has been censored. I'm apalled guys. The more so as it appears contributors are free to call me names such as 'a talking coconut' among many, many others. Those are allowed? But my drawing is not? When is censorship justified is my question? And who defends the contributors on these forums? My objects are earnest and I am anxious to dicuss these issues. Surely all such should be encouraged?
Just as a final thought. I have known an attack on the internet that has probably been unequalled in its history. But I also know that it takes time to 'win' over a readership. I've had experience of this. I cannot do so if I am not allowed to speak. And I resent having to speak other people's ideas and not my own. That's the invitation on this forum. I've taken up that invitation - is all.
-
I'm sorry that you feel you've been censored, but you managed to so offend a member of this forum that they deleted their account. It doesn't matter how other people reacted to your drawings - this was clearly a malicious and offensive act.
You were asked to be civil - as were other people involved in the argument. You chose not to be. It doesn't matter what other people are doing - had you felt it was unfair you should have said so, rather than ignore that request and continue to be offensive.
You have now chosen to take this issue public. I invite others to read through your threads and come to their own conclusions.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27348.msg290978#msg290978
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg290928#msg290928
Just as a final thought. I have known an attack on the internet that has probably been unequalled in its history.
I doubt it, the internet can be a vile and vicious place.
-
Thank you BenV. [;D]
I expected you to lock this as well. Clearly underestimated you. Not entirely consorial. [:X] Just little bit? LOL
I'm going to redo some of those videos. And will then post a link. I will also take the trouble to courteously reply to all comments that are constructive. But if I'm attacked I take it I refer to you?
Regarding the internet attack led by TinselKoala on Overunity.com ? That was pretty brutal. What was extraordinary is that I was barred from joining the forum so could not speak in my defense. The fun part was seeing the 'trolls' either become friends or leave the forum. Either way it was a really nice consequence. Here's some historical acount of it posted on energetic forum - for anyone who's interested.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-104.html#post73759
Meanwhile I continue to defend my right to uncensored comments unless that censorship is applied to all contributors. That's fair.
edit: If Nixietube deleted his account I'm delighted. [;D] If it was anyone else, I'm really, really sorry. [:I]
-
I'm sorry that you feel you've been censored, but you managed to so offend a member of this forum that they deleted their account. It doesn't matter how other people reacted to your drawings - this was clearly a malicious and offensive act.
It was not malicious. I will swear to this in a Court of Law - if required. IT WAS INDEED NOT A MALICIOUS ACT. When has any cartoon been malicious? It was meant as fun, delivered as fun, and - with respect, I believe it was indeed fun. How can that be malicious? Yet their reference to my using a 'coconut logic' is not a malicious act? edit. I might point out that this was not deleted. It's still there - for all to view. 2nd edit. And it was repeated over and over by JerryGG and then twice by Nixietube. Even repetition is meant to be outlawed in terms of your posting standards. But nothing done there. Only my link to the cartoon has been deleted?
Let me remind you. Nixietube required me to reconsider the results of an experiment that had been under close consideration for nearly 10 years and had now been fully replicated under the most transparent tools available to open source. He had not read my model. He did not even know my name. He had not got familiar with the circuitry despite being a masters in electronics. He had clearly not read the paper despite being provided with a link. He then presumed to tell me to go to him? someone? and ask them to please explain where the test was wrong? Alternatively he advised me to ask why this was happening? When the result was required in terms of a field model? This question that he advised me to ask was actually the opening gambit in the initiating chapters of that locked thread. I got an attack - notwithstanding - that discouraged me, for a while, from any further constributions here. It was extraordinary. Yet nixietube's attitude is acceptable. My defense is not? I just don't get it BenV.
-
I will also take the trouble to courteously reply to all comments that are constructive. But if I'm attacked I take it I refer to you?
Please report any ad-hominem attacks to the moderators.
The fun part was seeing the 'trolls' either become friends or leave the forum. Either way it was a really nice consequence.
But you appreciate that, by confessing that you goad people on the forum for fun, that you become a troll yourself?
edit: If Nixietube deleted his account I'm delighted. [;D] If it was anyone else, I'm really, really sorry. [:I]
I hate to see anybody hounded out of the forum by personal attacks.
Might I suggest that while you're remaking your videos, you record one showing how you set up your circuit, what you're measuring, how you're measuring it and some values it gives? This should help to clear the air and answer some of the questions put to you.
-
It was not malicious. I will swear to this in a Court of Law - if required. IT WAS INDEED NOT A MALICIOUS ACT. When has any cartoon been malicious? It was meant as fun, delivered as fun, and - with respect, I believe it was indeed fun. How can that be malicious? Yet their reference to my using a 'coconut logic' is not a malicious act?
Let me remind you. Nixietube required me to reconsider the results of an experiment that had been under close consideration for nearly 10 years and had now been fully replicated under the most transparent tools available to open source. He had not read my model. He did not even know my name. He had not got familiar with the circuitry despite being a masters in electronics. He had clearly not read the paper despite being provided with a link. He then presumed to tell me to go to him? someone? and ask them to please explain where the test was wrong? Alternatively he advised me to ask why this was happening? When the result was required in terms of a field model? This question that he advised me to ask was actually the opening gambit in the initiating chapters of that locked thread. I got an attack - notwithstanding - that discouraged me, for a while, from any further constributions here. It was extraordinary. Yet nixietube's attitude is acceptable. My defense is not? I just don't get it BenV.
You've hit on something there - nixietube's comments were an attack on your experiment, conclusions and hypothesis - yours were direct attacks on him/her as a person. If someone hasn't read your paper, why get annoyed if they criticise it?
-
I saw this was moved to just chat. Then I saw this was reviesd. And then I see it's back here. BenV there is nothing 'just chat' about a science topic and I do not intend answering your seious questons about science in a 'just chat' forum. If you meant to get rid of me by doing this you've done so. I will post links to my threads elsewhere on the internet and put it on record that you have now hounded me out of this forum by attempting to diminish my concerns as they relate to the accreditation of scientific experiments. It is unlikely that any reader here will be at all interested in such matters. And I do not think it's appropriate to detail and justify scientific experiements in a 'just chat' forum.
I put it to you that you did this deliberately to get rid of me and I now have three threads locked - the latest without a single ad hominem comment from anywhere at all.
Cheers. You achieved your object. I should have realised that it was you who wanted to get rid of me - long back. Why did I ever think you were reasonable?
-
If someone hasn't read your paper, why get annoyed if they criticise it? BenV
And you actually ASK THIS QUESTION? Are you suggesting that a contributing member of this forum launch an attack without knowledge of the basis of that attack?
-
I suggest you stop your attack on me and revisit the facts about this thread.
I saw this was moved to just chat. Then I saw this was reviesd. And then I see it's back here.
Back where? It's still in 'Just chat' where it belongs.
BenV there is nothing 'just chat' about a science topic and I do not intend answering your seious questons about science in a 'just chat' forum.
I moved this particular thread to just chat because it did not belong in new theories - it's not a science discussion, it's certainly not a new theory, it's a complaint about censorship. You started this thread, so you should know what it's about.
I would not expect anyone to seriously discuss scientific issues in this thread, as it's a thread about censorship.
This thread has not been locked - it's the "moved topic" notification that is locked.
If you meant to get rid of me by doing this you've done so. I will post links to my threads elsewhere on the internet and put it on record that you have now hounded me out of this forum by attempting to diminish my concerns as they relate to the accreditation of scientific experiments. It is unlikely that any reader here will be at all interested in such matters. And I do not think it's appropriate to detail and justify scientific experiements in a 'just chat' forum.
I haven't done any hounding - I locked a thread that had become nothing but a flamewar. This new thread has nothing to do with your "concerns as they relate to the accreditation of scientific experiments".
I put it to you that you did this deliberately to get rid of me and I now have three threads locked - the latest without a single ad hominem comment from anywhere at all.
Again, this thread isn't locked.
Cheers. You achieved your object. I should have realised that it was you who wanted to get rid of me - long back. Why did I ever think you were reasonable?
If I had wanted you gone, you would have been banned for deliberately ignoring something I had asked you to do, and continuing to be offensive to members of the forum (regardless of how justified you felt in doing so). You thought I am reasonable simply because I am, I defended you and helped you when you first arrived, and have dealt fairly with both you and your detractors.
Now you are attacking me because you misunderstood the moving of a thread.
-
If someone hasn't read your paper, why get annoyed if they criticise it? BenV
And you actually ASK THIS QUESTION? Are you suggesting that a contributing member of this forum launch an attack without knowledge of the basis of that attack?
I asked why you should get annoyed. If someone hasn't read the paper, simply ask them to do so or point them towards comments of your own that will help them understand. Again, it's a criticism of the science they see presented here, not an attack on the person presenting it.
-
The subject at issue is censhorship. You have censored a link I put in the thread to a cartoon depiction of nixietube. But censorship here is much, much broader. We have the censorship of our learned and revered who, historically, will not review experimental evidence of a circuit that breaches constraints in our thermodynamic laws. Both need to be addressed. The issue regarding thermodynamic laws are critical. They can only be answered on technical bases and at a technical level. Such does not belong to a 'JUST CHAT' forum where the interest is in things that really are not of historical importance. Our paper is.
So. You have diminished the importance of the argument by implying that it's importance is simply a superficial issue that can be determined in Just Chat. Sophiecentaur recommended this before. I see you are following his advices. If you think that this just chat forum is designed for technical scientific discussion then I am mistaken. If you think my complaint is to do with a petulant beef regarding general censorship - then you are mistaken.
-
If someone hasn't read your paper, why get annoyed if they criticise it? BenV
And you actually ASK THIS QUESTION? Are you suggesting that a contributing member of this forum launch an attack without knowledge of the basis of that attack?
I asked why you should get annoyed. If someone hasn't read the paper, simply ask them to do so or point them towards comments of your own that will help them understand. Again, it's a criticism of the science they see presented here, not an attack on the person presenting it.
The answer that you are looking for here does not belong to 'just chat'.
-
I moved this particular thread to just chat because it did not belong in new theories - it's not a science discussion, it's certainly not a new theory, it's a complaint about censorship. You started this thread, so you should know what it's about. BenV
It certainly does merit serious discussion. We have submitted 3 papers to the IET AND THE IEEE. They both have a stranglehold on all reviewed journal publications. They have prevented this paper from being reviewed and published. The result is that the entire world is unaware of a breach in constraints required by our thermodynamic laws. As the original test has now been often and widely replicated it requires - at it's least - some serious attention by our learned and revered. They cannot attend to this unless it comes to them through their own journals - lest they be accused of the eccentricity that is associated with this claim. This censorship is seriously impacting on a world where clean energy is CRITICAL and an abundance of energy required. The experimental evidence is that both is available. It should properly be brought to the attention of the public and it should, properly be fully investigated by our academics. It will not happen until the censorship relating to such claims is lifted and that the issue is explored on a scientific basis as is required. Science is determined by experimental evidence - not by belief.
While the subject is censorship the object is scientific censorship and - like all censorship it should be addressed. But the importance of this cannot be stressed without a full explanation of the scientific implications. So you've silenced me on the explanation and left me with nothing to relate but the facts, to an audience who will not understand the implications of the scientific significance. In effect you have censored me - yet again.
And it certainly is a science discussion. And it is an ENTIRELY NEW THESIS. It is the censorship of both that is at issue.
-
Can you read your first post of this thread again please? You seem to think that this is a contiunuation of the other threads.
There is no discussion of your hypothesis, experiment or science papers in this thread, other than that you seem to be trying to crowbar into it.
This thread was started as a conversational topic in which you complain about your posts being locked.
This was not a new thread in which to carry on discussing something that should have been discussed in the old thread before it was locked.
Had you wanted to continue that discussion, why not just send us a message asking to unlock it, and agreeing to be civil in future?
-
Benv - had I thought that there was an outside chance of these threads being unlocked through the simple expediency of apology and an undertaking to 'behave' then let me assure you I would have done so. And let me then do so now, albeit belatedly.
That I have been a victim of attack is unarguable. The evidence speaks for itself. That I have, latterly, retaliated in these responses is also unarguable. But as full license was given to the attackers I assumed the same license in my responses. In future I will report such to a monitor and will ignore the posts of those contributors who have or do use my posts as an opportunity to attack me.
Here's the thing. There is one blog on the internet that has the single largest approved membership of any other and the highest readership - which is energetic forum. They cannot keep up with the sheer volume of applications and now simply sign up new applicants when and if there is also an attendant recommendation from another contributer. The result is that have managed to get a standard on that forum that is constructive and creative. Its members are also all friends rather than otherwise. And in this atmosphere of friendship and trust the contributors can relax and entirely relate to shared interests and goals. When a contributor is seen to be distracting or trolling or degrading this standard they are summarily banned. The resuls speak for themselves. The level of expertise amongst the experimenters is unequalled and it is a joy to both read and to contribute. And their readership is higher than other blogs by a factor of 10.
I'm not spamming a forum. I'm trying to point out a difference. Readership is severely compromised when the thread topic is boringly and repetitively destructive and critical. People don't want to go there anymore than they want to hear two or more people quarreling. There is a difference. When the contributors are sparring and it's both witty and fun, then - again - it can be enjoyable reading. But that also needs an entire lack of malice in the contributors. And one also needs the repartee to be better than sub-standard.
But far be it from me to advise you about standards. I think the Naked Science Forum has the same objects and goals for the same reason. It appears that I have contributed to this 'drop' in standards by not using the 'report to monitor' option that was literally made available in each and every post. In future I will do so. But my assumption was that the threads were being carefully 'over seen' which is absurd considering the size of your own blog and the multiple threads and the multiple subdivisions of those threads into their different topics. I am now more cogniscant of this and will attempt, in future, to help my own cause by applying myself better to the goals of this blog.
And regarding my quarrel with you. It's been extended and possibly unfounded but I hope it is still reparable. Sorry BenV. I know you've always been in the background and I know you've encouraged me to fully explain my thesis and I CANNOT accuse you of anything other than the utmost respect and kindnesses. Indeed, had I not sensed that you were there through that tornedo of criticism, I would have signed off long before I did. Abject apologies. It is entirely unwarranted to accuse you as I have and it hardly serves my objects to alienate someone who, historically, has been so supportive.
I do hope, on a personal level, that you have it in you to forgive me. On a practical level, I also hope that you will restore my threads. It represents some of my best writing and I have so much that I would LOVE to write about. And at the risk of being awfully presumptuous I also think that both threads will have some historical significance in as much as they deal with an emergent science that holds some real promise for our planet's future.
From a chastened and wiser Witsend.
-
The best proof of a scientific claim is when published in a peer reviewed publication with others reproducing the claim. Until then, anything in this forum can be "nice" and "fun" and "provocative", but there's no proving anything here.
I can't argue with this DiscoverDave. The object here is to point out that submission for publiction in a reviewed journal first requires that review. Historically this has been denied us notwitstanding repeated submissions. My hope is to discuss the justification for this, on the one hand, and to alert mainstream and the public to this fact. It falls under censorship. The review process, as I understand it, is to determine the merits of those submissions, the experimental evidence or the hypothesis or both as it relates to the promotion of new and significant insights into science. It apparently may require a certain dialogue between the editor and the authors as go between for the reviewers who remain anonymous. If arguments need clarification then this is how it's done prior to publication.
Here's the thing. We are trying again. But this time we've gone to some considerable trouble to alert the public to the existence of that paper and it's submission. The hope is that it won't be 'swept under the carpet' with the ease and convenience that was applied to date.
-
ENOUGH!, Wit's End
Have you ever read our "Acceptable Use Policy?" You did agree to it when you joined the forum.
As it says in the "Acceptable Use Policy" (found here - http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0)
"The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory. It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.
"It is not acceptable simply to repost material onto this forum that you have posted elsewhere, except where the post is specifically pertinent to an ongoing thread. If you start a thread with a post that is for all practical purposes the same as you have posted elsewhere, we will generally assume that you are evangelising, and will act accordingly."
You already have your own forums for over-unity. Only two examples are below. Your circuit is posted elsewhere as well.
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/2008/01/patent.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-111.html
THERE ARE 111 PAGES TO THIS LAST DISCUSSION LINK! THAT IS EXPOSURE FOR YOUR TOPIC. AND YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT US NOT GIVING YOU ENOUGH EXPOSURE??
The policy also says:
"10. The moderators are the final arbiter.
"If a moderator requests that a forum user change a post that they have submitted to the forum, or that they alter the nature of future posts, then a failure by the forum user to abide by the request made of them will itself be regarded as a serious breach of the rules, and could lead to the user being suspended or banned from the forum forthwith.
"A moderator may choose, where they feel it appropriate for the good order of the forum, that they should themselves edit or delete a post submitted by a forum user. If the forum user has a problem with this action, they should contact the moderator and explain why they believe the change the moderator has made is inappropriate, but they should not seek to reverse that change themselves without first obtaining the consent of the moderator to do so. Any attempt to reverse such a change without such authorisation will itself be regarded as a serious breech of the rules, and could lead to the user being suspended or banned from the forum.
"In all matters, the moderators' judgment is final."
Ben has been overly tolerant of you. After discussion among ourselves, a majority of the rest of we moderators have had enough of your whining. It is just your misfortune if you do not like the way this forum is moderated. The Naked Scientist has given you a platform since 26/05/2009 - That is long enough. Your post will not be removed. They will remain.
However, I am afraid you will not be posting again. Enough whining. You have monopolized the moderators time and the forum's costly band-width long enough. And vilification of Ben's kind, gentle attempts to bring you into line with forum policy is met with vitriol and indignation. You just don't get it.
What I am about to do is not censorship. It is action taken because of your violation of our policies, outlined above.
You may no longer have the privilege of posting to this site.
JimBob - Moderator
-
The subject at issue is censhorship. You have censored a link I put in the thread to a cartoon depiction of nixietube.
Sorry, but that's stopping abuse. Not censoring, no matter how 'fun' you found it.
-
I just joined this site.
It seems great...
...but witsend, you're ruining it for me.
Why are you being so rude?
I know it might not seem like it (because you are on the computer) but those are REAL people you've insulted.
I never thought I'd have to tell a scientist this, but for goodness sake, smarten up!
-
Witsend is no longer posting here.
Perhaps it is best for this thread to be locked and let it sink into the depths of the database.