several questions about validity

[Beau]

Hello Destiny,

We recommend all new members post an intro to the Newbies section of the forum. You don't need to provide specifics, just how you found us and maybe what interests you have that coincide with the forum. :)

 

[Gimpy]

I think that this is something that many people that come here to attack the forum are unable to distinguish: the difference between respect and worship.

I do not like the term "respect"". Respect is not a good thing - when you have respect to someone, to some extent you will hesitate to pay a critical attention to what the respected party is doing or saying. You will tend to forgive what you will consider to be "small errors". It would be better if it was just "l like it", "I like the values", or "It suits my purpose". Or, "I like the idea and I want to participate, because it seems to me that when I participate here I am gaining, and I am contributing to the realization of some ideas that I consider as valuable". Anything like this is much better than "respect", also because it promotes an active participation rather than just a passive one.

And please, do no accept what I wrote above out of respect alone :) We should always strive at accepting things owing to our understanding, rather than owing to our to respect.

Thank you for explaining a difficult concept so clearly. Every time I've tried to do so, people think I'm being 'ruthless and mean', and even abusive. In light of that, silence is golden in my case, as a closed mouth gathers no foot, fist, or bat upside the head. :D

Acceptance + Understanding+ further exploration in tandem= co-linearity

 

[Gonzo]

Hi Tis the,
I don't quite get the point you are making.

Overlooking your seemingly erroneous "original poster" interpretation...

Assuming you do not know the poster (since you and sott adopt other pseudonyms) it may not be erroneous to label him/her as such. It might have been however, unwise, judgemental, ignorant and certainly STS to do so in this context, osit.

Would you be able to explain what you meant with respect first to the statement "(since you and sott adopt other pseudonyms)" and to whom you were addressing?

As well, I didn't understand the thrust of the remaining portion of the comment where you said, "unwise, judgemental, ignorant and certainly STS to do so in this context." Could you better explain what you meant by this?

I find it odd that someone who just joined the forum would make such bold statements, unless you merely created a different username to log in with to carry on your "discussion".

Thanks,
Gonzo

 

[ark]

I find it odd that someone who just joined the forum would make such bold statements, unless you merely created a different username to log in with to carry on your "discussion".

Well, we do not know for sure that this someone "just joined the forum". My working hypothesis is that this someone has joined the forum at least once before. So the problem is not with bold statements. The problem is with the logic in these statements. And this logic, or its lack, as well as a peculiar sense of humor shown in the post, tempts me to make even a further reaching working hypothesis. But my working hypothesis needs more data. So, let's wait and see.

 

[SolarMother]

I find it odd that someone who just joined the forum would make such bold statements, unless you merely created a different username to log in with to carry on your "discussion".

Well, we do not know for sure that this someone "just joined the forum". My working hypothesis is that this someone has joined the forum at least once before. So the problem is not with bold statements. The problem is with the logic in these statements. And this logic, or its lack, as well as a peculiar sense of humor shown in the post, tempts me to make even a further reaching working hypothesis. But my working hypothesis needs more data. So, let's wait and see.

Unless I overlooked something, it appears that 'walkington' dissapeared...perhaps he was 'sent' to disrupt, but it doesn't matter since his post generated a flurry of learning material, and I have certainly appreciated it. I seem to be doing a flurry of posting today :P

 

[Gertrudes]

Right. Perhaps it will be of some use if I explain how I understand "respect". Right now I am at a final stage of writing a long scientific article about "conformal infinity" - whatever it means. In this article I am exposing misrepresentations in several well known monographs written by well known scientists. These misrepresentations have their origin in misleading made by most famous scientists such as Roger Penrose and Steven Hawking. Other scientists somehow relied on what Penrose and Hawking were saying, but did not take care to check carefully themselves, probably because of "respect". Errors have been propagated in the scientific literature. In my article I analyze these errors, point them explicitly, and provide the correct solutions. I do have respect for those who wrote these erroneous statements because these authors have done also a lot of good and error free work. In fact almost all their work is good. But errors are errors and should be exposed as such.

Because I am also lightly criticizing Penrose and Hawking as well, I have sent the preliminary version of my paper to them as well. No reply. My respect for them is somewhat lesser now. But, on the other hand, I am thankful, because finding errors in such difficult matters was a challenge for me and I have learned a lot myself during the work on my article.

Ok, I gave this further thought. Respects walks on a fine line, as with many things, it needs balance. For fruitful interactions respect should walk hand in hand with critical thinking.

However, I think that admiration can enter the equation. For example, respect without critical thinking could easily become admiration, which in itself is not a bad thing. It is only less useful when we put ourselves on a different level from the person we admire, which can so easily happen with admiration.
For example, in the situation context of the word in bold, respect is perhaps tinted with admiration, which led to a lack of proper checking.

Mmmm, not sure myself. It is an hypothesis I am creating the further I think of it.

 

[redwraith33]

I would prefer this thread not be distracted with offbase overanalysis

Well, nothing prevents you from concentrating on my reply to the OP ;)

If you would like me to expand some particular issues that you would like to have covered in more detail - I can do it.
For instance, there is an interesting question why would someone who does not like the profile of a particular discussion forum sign on for participation in such a forum anyway, instead of choosing some other forum with a profile of his/her liking? Attempting to answer this question can lead us into some interesting issues of human psychology.

In no way was I referring to you Ark! I rather appreciated your reply, among others.

 

[redwraith33]

Hi Anart, I think redwraith33 was reffering to OP as in original poster.

Ah - then apologies redwraith33, and thanks for the clarification, Manta.

No worries, ya'll. It's funny since I joined SOTT back in 2006, I've often thought of Anart as the SOTT "Watchdog" which she is very good at. I'll think twice before referring to someone as an "OP" from now on!

 

[redwraith33]

who get a kick out of a establishing a cult like control over a number of individuals?

Oh would you trolls PLEASEEEE just knock it off with the "cult" crap?? Here's a cluebrick for ya sunshine....if there's a little "X" in the upper right hand corner, it's not a "cult" ... it's a COMPUTER! Anything you can turn off with less effort than it takes to pick your nose does not even remotely qualify as a "cult"

I hear you Gaurdian-

I really can’t understand people who come here and compare this site to cults. Do these people even know what cults are??

Recently, I had to switch my phone # and received a new #. But this new # caused me to receive several unwanted phone calls from some credit burials and from some Evangelical Church looking for the person who had that # listed. Anyway, I ended up reading up about this church and found out that once you become a member, you are required to pay 5-10% of your yearly salary to the church by all means. Even if you don’t attend anything- just by being a member!

Here, there is no such thing as you MUST give us money. You are FREE to do what you want. You can give money or not- you are FREE to CHOOSE to read this site or not. There are NO obligations!

Laura, Ark or ANYONE here do not see themselves better or above anyone else or more “evolved”. They are respected by everyone because they have earned that respect due to their hard work and their willingness to stand up to tyranny of all sorts. Respect does NOT equal worship.

Also, the reason the "cult" accusations have rang hollow with me is that historically, most of them seem to require you to live together physically, like on some ranch or compound somewhere. Almost like a prison, where you can't leave of your own free will. That definitely does NOT apply to SOTT!

 

[KingTiger]

My take on all this is that Walkingon used this post as a probing post just to see the depth, breath and skill of what this site is about.
Do all of you realize in game theory (or the art of war), that you must find the weakness in ones opponent and then exploit it.
The poster just had to post two messages and got a wealth of information on the thinking, direction and defense of all the major players on this site. Next time, by another name, the poster will validate what it thinks this forum weak points are and then go in for the kill or some other type of manipulation.

I see Walkingon as very professional in his objective, with no follow up, no clarification on his point, just bye-bye; and he got over 50 post from the brightest most articulate members of the forum with enough information to analysis each of you to find those holes where it could be used to break a bigger hole into whatever agenda was intended.
I do remember my Star Trek (Space Seed...) where Captain Kirk probed Khan while Spock analyzed for weakness, in which Khan congratulated Kirk for being a good tactician.
I could be wrong in my observation, but reading this forum as long as I have been, these types of posters do not present themselves very often. When they do, something is going down.

 

[anart]

My take on all this is that Walkingon used this post as a probing post just to see the depth, breath and skill of what this site is about.
Do all of you realize in game theory (or the art of war), that you must find the weakness in ones opponent and then exploit it.
The poster just had to post two messages and got a wealth of information on the thinking, direction and defense of all the major players on this site. Next time, by another name, the poster will validate what it thinks this forum weak points are and then go in for the kill or some other type of manipulation.

I see Walkingon as very professional in his objective, with no follow up, no clarification on his point, just bye-bye; and he got over 50 post from the brightest most articulate members of the forum with enough information to analysis each of you to find those holes where it could be used to break a bigger hole into whatever agenda was intended.
I do remember my Star Trek (Space Seed...) where Captain Kirk probed Khan while Spock analyzed for weakness, in which Khan congratulated Kirk for being a good tactician.
I could be wrong in my observation, but reading this forum as long as I have been, these types of posters do not present themselves very often. When they do, something is going down.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but the key here is that there is no 'go in for the kill'. How could there be? 'walkingon's posts weren't even challenging, they were emotional, rather scattered and quite intellectually immature.

I would agree that 'something is up', however, because here, and in a few other venues, people have, in the past several days, been 'popping off' - which usually indicates something, on the broader stage is 'up'.

Regarding 'walkingon' - my take is that he's just another frustrated, angry person who is struggling to put two and two together in the larger sense and, thus, taking that out on anyone who is available. No need for the 'art of war' - it's very simple, every day, mechanical behavior leading no where. The vast majority of posts in this thread were written for the benefit of general readers who might come across what he had written. They were not written for 'walkingon'. This is done for a specific reason since clarity of signal is important and one never knows who will stumble upon which thread at which time. Thus, we attempt to clarify each thread for the benefit of all (we don't always succeed) - 'walkingon' was just that, walking on as a bit player on the stage, hopefully helping others to understand the general theme through his lack of understanding. I'm not sure if that clarifies or not, but - hopefully it at least sheds a different slant of light on the subject.

 

[walkingon]

smart.. I'm just wondering.. having analyzed my own posts, and those of others on this site, why are mine emotional, rather scattered and quite intellectually immature.". I don't think you have enough evidence to make such an assertion. In fa ct, I think you are an easily deceived individual and naive.. too bad you are immature like a little girl naive to taste to frozen apple.

 

[walkingon]

unfortunately, most of you are too stupid to see the truth. One of your users quoted well.
He said this : " used this post as a probing post just to see the depth, breath and skill of what this site is about.
Do all of you realize in game theory (or the art of war), that you must find the weakness in ones opponent and then exploit it.
The poster just had to post two messages and got a wealth of information on the thinking, direction and defense of all the major players on this site. Next time, by another name, the poster will validate what it thinks this forum weak points are and then go in for the kill or some other type of manipulation.…"

He was right. This guy was smart. He nailed me down on thte spot. Too bad the rest of you are too vulnerable and naive to see it. =(,. So go ahead, laura, ban me. You are nothing but an egomaniacal narcissist whose words mean nothing in the wind, and whose words manipulate weak souls, vulnerable souls.. Soon they will realize the spell you have cast on them... weak newbie..

 

[EGVG]

smart.. I'm just wondering.. having analyzed my own posts, and those of others on this site, why are mine emotional, rather scattered and quite intellectually immature.". I don't think you have enough evidence to make such an assertion. In fa ct, I think you are an easily deceived individual and naive.. too bad you are immature like a little girl naive to taste to frozen apple.

sad...

 

[walkingon]

yeah. sad you hide behind conspiracy theories to avoid your own inadequacy. that's what's sad...