0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Just as a final thought. I have known an attack on the internet that has probably been unequalled in its history.
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.
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?
The fun part was seeing the 'trolls' either become friends or leave the forum. Either way it was a really nice consequence.
edit: If Nixietube deleted his account I'm delighted.  If it was anyone else, I'm really, really sorry. [:I]
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.
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? BenVAnd 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?
Quote from: witsend on 18/12/2009 12:18:10If someone hasn't read your paper, why get annoyed if they criticise it? BenVAnd 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 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.
The subject at issue is censhorship. You have censored a link I put in the thread to a cartoon depiction of nixietube.