|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 27, 2011 21:08:31 GMT 1
Because I don't like warmist clones targetting this board, speaker.
Louise has not JOINED this board she has assaulted it with precisely the same modus operandi as Lazarus and Havelock et al used. A blitz of new warmist threads within only a few days of "joining" - 25, so far, since the 13th January.
Louise is not content to participate in existing threads. Her stategy is to drive all threads off the summary board except hers. We have seen exactly the same behaviour before from her fellow clones. Group mind.
We'll see how long the management permits her to continue. Any bets? Mr Smith, you're usually game to stick your neck out! Will admin permit "Louise" to continue her rampage?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 28, 2011 3:19:05 GMT 1
Okay, you don't like what she posts -- but that isn't grounds for claiming that she is being sneaky, or using some anonymous proxy server, or pretending to be someone she is not.
Good god woman, I don't like what you post, but I think I don't accuse you of anything worse than being a cut&pasting time wasting conspiracy theorist! You may be deluded, but at least I have the courtesy to assume you are honestly deluded! (or should that be deluded but honest........)
Talking of assaults and rampages -- certain other posters I could name do far worse, just maybe they're on the physics and universe topics where you rarely tread.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 28, 2011 9:54:19 GMT 1
.... but at least I have the courtesy to assume you are honestly deluded! ;D Talking of assaults and rampages -- certain other posters I could name do far worse, just maybe they're on the physics and universe topics where you rarely tread. What she means here MR is that she has been exposed as a total fraud, a non-scientist who pretends to be a scientist (at least in the physics discipline) on the 'Bollocks to Infinity' thread. Up to now her exposure has been partial, but now she is fully exposed
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 28, 2011 11:56:37 GMT 1
"Okay, you don't like what she posts"
No, it's not that, speaker. I disagree with a lot of what is posted here from Eamonn and others. What I object to is the strategy of targetting this board which is exactly the same as that of lazarus, Havelock, Enquirer and others of their ilk.
People who are not posting IN GOOD FAITH stick out a mile amongst the rest of us. They come from out of nowhere with their strategy already mapped out from warmist HQ. Plain as day.
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Jan 28, 2011 12:46:23 GMT 1
......... I disagree with a lot of what is posted here from Eamonn and others. What I object to is the strategy of targetting this board ....... And what, pray tell, do you think is my reason for posting here? What do you think I am trying to achieve? Because I very much doubt if you know. Smithy certainly doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 28, 2011 13:36:19 GMT 1
Eamonn, you are a consistent poster who we all know from the BBC boards. In fact everyone who posts here is long-time ex-BBC Science Board WITH THE EXCEPTION OF Havelock, Lazarus, Enquirer and Louise and their clones.
They all popped up out of nowhere with their strategy ready-made and flooded the board with posts without ever drawing breath to participate in existing conversations. This board is not for people who want to take it over and bend it to their ideology.
You must admit that 25 new threads from a newbie in the space of two weeks is a tad unusual?
Where is she, by the way? Taking a day off or has her gallop been stopped, as my old mum used to say!
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Jan 28, 2011 13:41:12 GMT 1
This board is not for people who want to take it over and bend it to their ideology. You have failed to answer my question. And what is my ideology? How many new threads did you start in your first two weeks? (And all on the same subject).
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 28, 2011 14:06:35 GMT 1
Which some would say seems to be what you want to do!
Look, the whole damn point is that people CAN pop up out of nowhere (how could it be otherwise given internet anonymity!). Flooding the board with posts? Well, how do you propose to stop that, put some sort of limit on posts until some secret over-sight committee decides they are probably okay?
Participate in existing conversations? You can't force em too!
Seems to boil down to --YOU personallly don't like certain posters who do certain things and post certain opinions. Whatever. But that DOES NOT justify your accusations about anonymous online proxies, that they have some ulterior motive etc etc. Because YOU posted as if you had actual evidence of actual contravention of board rules.
you don't -- you just think some people are a pain and you don't like their opinions or the way they express them.
Tough shit! As long as they don't actually contravene board rules and get up the moderators nose, you just have to put up with it -- if you don't like it, ignore them, argue back, whatever. I just think it is totally unacceptable to instead accuse people of specific infringements of board rules, or of specific attempts to hide and deceive when you actually have no evidence.
You MAY be a collosal pain in the arse M, with obnoxious opinions, little knowledge of science or maths, a peculiar political agenda, and a conspiracy-theory addict -- but that's just my opinion, and I'd still support your right to be on these boards, just as I'd hoped you'd support my right to be on here and express that opinion -- but perhaps not.................................
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 28, 2011 14:09:03 GMT 1
Yeah, yeah, yeah same ole same ole. And like M, you don't have any evidence either -- just a vain hope that if you state a thing enough times, some people will be stupid eneough to think it is true.
I refer you back again to C. Shannon, and his specific statements on the subject. Your favourite theory dismissed by one appropriate little fact. poor you!
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jan 28, 2011 14:32:05 GMT 1
Louise is not content to participate in existing threads. I tend not to get involved in the discussions - existing or new - because of the level of vitriol that is directed by posters such as marchesarosa and rsmith. I am content to post information that I find interesting. This is not always about climate change (e.g. Booze calculator, RSPB survey, etc) but because I do find the science of climate change quite interesting, most of my post are on this subject - as are marchesarosa's from what I see. I have posted a few times on attempts at reconciliation or open dialogue between those who do and do not think that AGW is an issue - these have also been met with vitriol. It seems that some people don't want to discuss the science, they want a fight. Well, I'm a pacifist so I stay away from threads that get nasty.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 28, 2011 14:44:42 GMT 1
If you're alarmed by "vitriol", louise, I suggest you read more of speaker's posts. We all take it in our stride. We're used to her. You seem to take criticism of your arguments as vitriol. It's not. It's just contempt.
I don't give a toss what people post so long as it isn't a concerted strategy by a set of clones.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 28, 2011 14:45:32 GMT 1
I don't think Louise will last much longer. She has been rumbled. She has been given the benefit of the doubt for long enough. She'll end up being ejected, just like her predecessors. The admin here doesn't bend over backwards, like the BBC did, to promote warmism.
Some of you have not grasped the difference. You think warmism is the "norm". That's only at the BBC! In the wide world the public is SCEPTICAL. Get used to it and get used to a board that reflects this.
alternatively, buzz off.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 28, 2011 15:16:55 GMT 1
Yeah, yeah, yeah same ole same ole. And like M, you don't have any evidence either -- just a vain hope that if you state a thing enough times, some people will be stupid eneough to think it is true. I refer you back again to C. Shannon, and his specific statements on the subject. Your favourite theory dismissed by one appropriate little fact. poor you! This person is mad, quite mad. A simple conceptual theory that is accepted by all communication engineers and that is the foundation of information theory is misinterpreted by this person who then is forced by her stupidity to the ridiculous statement that an empty store holding all 0's has as much infomation content as a store holding the encoded Encylcopaedia Britannica! This is such a nonsense staement that a child would dismiss it. When presented with overwhelming evidence that she has got it wrong she then goes on to waffle and evade I have taught information theory to groups of people with Phd's in telecommunications and never have I experienced such stuborn blind idiocy! Amazing!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 28, 2011 16:12:34 GMT 1
Maybe you should try some people with Phds in maths or computer science -- they'd laugh at your garbled version of information theory!
Ah! Except it ISN'T that straightforward, and you seem to have missed almost ALL the subtleties. Hence do what physicists and mathematicians always tease engineers about -- apply the equations (hopefully in the correct place), but with no idea of where they actually come from.
Except I presented even more evidence that you have misunderstood, from Shannon himself. Yet you refuse to listen. Which is why I'm a better teacher than you will ever be -- I'm always willing to admit I might be wrong, which is why I check, check, check -- you seem to think (I've been doing this for years,bluster, bluster, bluster) you know it all and don't need to listen.
I can also now see perfectly well WHAT your simple mistake is, and why your bastardised version works for your needs, WHY it sounds convincing to your engineering students, and WHY it is totally wrong.
I refer you again to Kolmogorov complexity, which attempts to overcome the limitations of shannons information content (such as why message that is a string of random zeros had as much information content as any other random string of os and 1s) -- except of course you don't think this is a problem, because you firmly convinced the information content of the former is zero! Which causes me to wonder why you think they bothered inventing Kolmogorov complexity if it was all so simple already.............................
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 28, 2011 16:47:52 GMT 1
Maybe you should try some people with Phds in maths or computer science -- they'd laugh at your garbled version of information theory! What an interesting view. My references that I have always used are those of the Professor of Engineering at CalTech, a former friend of Shannon the founder Information Theory Indeed the examples I use to demonstrate the calculations of information content (and have used on this board) are taken from his book Would you like the book ref, page ref, example ref? Your sneering is wildly misplaced, is contemptible and reflects poorly upon your status as a 'phycisist'.
|
|