proximity1

Technical note: many here shall be quite pleased to hear that, due to a construction-site accident, my usual internet access is now and for about a week to come (as I understand it) severely limited. In the circumstances, I'm using that very limited time for other internet needs rather than reading and replying here. I'll get back to this when the repairs have been effected.

Try informing yourself further. DId you read the article by Greenwald I cited above? The following comes from it ( and there are links to other articles which further substantiate the flawed reasoning going on by Trump's critics in this case: Fact : the Podesta e-mail files which Wikileaks published were "protected" by a password which was "password." The most damning aspect pointing up the veracity of this fact is that, a) Podesta has never flatly denied its truth, nor have there been any of the screaming headlines of its falsehood which should surely have quickly followed if it had not been true. Instead, critics replied with the claim that this "lacks evidence." It does not. Assange verified in his interview with Hannity that, indeed, Podesta used "password" as a password. in the face of this, the Obama administration's campagin reveals itself as shameless propaganda of the "WMD" sort.

I've cited numerous examples in threads of a non-science topic (Politics, for example), noting about various comments from the in-group's members the kind of shoddy reasoning which is quickly censored when moderators find a newbie posting (even in a non-science area) comments of which the moderator simply doesn't approve. There may indeed by flaws in the reasoning--the fact is that these kinds of flaws are common here in non-science threads from the mutually-supporting in-group. They simply are ignored, left to stand. And when I noted them, I got called down for--guess what!?--that's right: rule violation. I'm expected--epxlicitly called on- to have a prepared a clear case in advance, full of examples. Well, that's not because this is what's routinely done here by all in all areas of discussion. It's because my thesis is sensitive and the in-group members don't like it. Again, their opinions in non-science discussions are not subjected to the sort of hostile scruntiny that Tom O'Neil received for venturing into a theory about the VM. While I didn't find his arguments particularly compelling, I saw no reason to come down on him in the way that was done. I could have mounted a stronger defense of his position--without regard for the congency of his arguments on the VM--but I didn't bother. What O'Neil actually sought and asked for was some specific assistance from a person competent in programming who might help him run a statistically-based analysis of his ideas and see if the results bear out. In short, he was looking help in advancing a test of his theory. According to his critics here, such a test should have certainly shown that there was no valid correlation going on. And I happen to agree with that expectation. But it's no good reason to have given him such rude short-shrift. That he was trying to find a developer for a testing program should have been allowable without prejudice as to the theory's merits per se. Again, no less preposterous things are maintained here and they're maintained by members in good standing and who enjoy the favor of all the right people here so they get nothing like the severe treatment that O'Neil got. I've been answered with ad hominem arguments, begging the question, diversions from the point, name-calling, hyperbole and none of it has drawn any correction from a moderator. The occasions when another member has even dared to timidly take my views in this matter as having even a possibiltiy of some, however partial, validity are fascinating in their rareness. It speaks of a community which either has a coincidental herd-mentality or which lives under a certain accepted intimidation as "well, that's how we roll here." Don't make no waves, don't rock no boats. In O'Neil's case, there's a clear bias at work in the way he was treated--and that's something apart from the merits or lack of them in his theory. What's going on is a stubborn, wilfull self-serving blindness. This comes as no surprise to me. However, it comes some 140 posts into this thread. Moreover, despite all that effort, which I don't doubt in the least, the moderating practices remain utterly opaque. A regular participant like Tom could have no idea that his effort would be so roundly squashed. Yes, several of you posed questions and made critiques of the flaws. I don't object to that. What I object to is a so complete and summary dismissal of his effort to enlist some programmer's help. No one here bothered to disprove his theory. Instead, the fact that it wasn't liked was entirely sufficient to shut down his appeal. Had he been allowed to find that programming help, the statistics should have done your work for you-- he'd have seen, on testing the expectations, that they don't bear out. This crusader-attitude here where a non-science topic is concerned is really clearly biased in my view and I've given examples of how it isn't consistent. You don't like it, but, yes, as for "one example," you've got several. Try being just a tiny bit more honest with yourself. I would say what's most lacking, obviously, is even a start at some genuine transparency. The moderating processes are utterly unaccountable to the readership. That this may be a common feature at many sites doesn't make it any the more just in principle.

No, I don't. The pretense from the site's moderators and its favored clique that, in effect, "we just don't get it" is laughably transparent in its disingenuousness. These people are quite intelligent. They get it. Pretending to be astonished at allegations of bias are ridiculous from such smart people. Throughout the thread, any disinterested reader can follow their various tactics-- from calls for a thorough exampled case-like dossier of proofs (when the evidence is literally reeking) to calls for "if you don't like it here, just leave," are those of people who are practiced in deflection, double-talk, resort to their own self-serving double-standards. Nothing is more predictable than that they'd make a pretentious show of their "tolerance" by allowing this thread to go on for a while. But that didn't preclude their moving it and peppering it with moderator thinly-veiled threats--all the usual treatment that out-group members can expect to get here.

"whistle-blower"-schmistle-blower, the point is not about the use, whether strictly apt or not, of the term "whistle-blower." The information revealed in the Podesta e-mails constituted information of genuinely legitimate interest and use to an informed electorate in the course of a presidential campaign. RE the above emphasized assertion, see : and the article to which the reader's comment responded : The Deep State Goes to War With President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer Glenn Greenwald January 11 2017, 3:35 p.m. Nothing "Alt-right" about this article, its author or the site at which it is published. Your retraction of the assertion that "the only outlets claiming that it was whistleblower are RT (a Russian outlet) and some alt-right websites (note the Julian Assange Show is broadcasted on RT" is weclome.

@ 128 : That suggests that you, who happen to be a moderator, have gone from thread to thread reading numerous--or all--of my recent posts. It's not that hard to do: the threads number about three and the posts number--today--something under a dozen I guess not counting this one. And I guess your doing that is just sheer coincidence--unrelated to the fact that I've been raising points critical of aspects of the site's operating habits, unrelated to my being part of what could arguably be called this "out-group" I've mentioned in the course of my argument in _this_ thread. But your very recent reading of post after post of mine today across three threads wouldn't be a calculated act of surveillance because we know moderators here harbor no invidious bias against members of some hypothetical "out-group." So you must merely find my comments interesting--and not some potential source-material for a critical post which you had already formed some expectations of being able to present, given sufficient time following my posts. We know that moderators don't just go looking for rule violations on the part of out-group members because there are none here--and no biases of motive or intent in finding and calling out violations, either. Everything moderators do here is done innocently. People alleging bias here are simply axe-grinders--unlike moderators, who never dream of doing such stuff. Meanwhile, I was specifically challenged to show where there was clear evidence to support my claims or risk seeing the discussion closed--not because the topic itself is unwelcome but simply because, in fairness, the charge wasn't supported with good evidence. How exactly I was supposed to collect this evidence without looking for it in both examples of in-group favoritism as well as out-group members getting attention, correction and warning for the same faults which go uncommented when in-group members commit them--that wasn't explained. As I say, it occurs to me that there's a routine double standard applied here with out-group members held to impossible demands and expectations from which in-group members are excused.

@127 "I don't have the time to read every post, but I do for the most part have the time to read every reported post." Of course you don't-- no more than I have time to track, log and classify every moderator-act of Swansont and present it tied up with a bow as irrefutable proof that this site's moderation fairly screems its biases--and, above all his biases. There are simply too many. It would be briefer work to just collect any valid-sized random sample of his interventions among newbies and among his in-group allies and make comparisons of disparaging terms he employs across the two samples--but I lack both the technology and the time for even that task. However, it's the kind of work the social anthropologists I cited with the NYT article can do qnd that's why I recommended that they do some analysis of the practice here.

@ 19 Often Wikileaks can independently check and verify submissions because the facts alleged don't depend on knowledge of the source's identity. That one _may_ submit anonymously surely doesn't preclude WL's occasional need to know the source's identity or their pledge to protect that source's privacy--does it, in your opinion? Do you seriously dispute that, as a logical necessity, unless you allege that Assange is lying (as Delta1212 contends we should always assume to be the case), Assange would have to know--or be confident of another's knowing-- the identity of the source or he couldn't state categorically that the source was _not_ Russian or a state actor, right? In this case it seems from what Assange has said that it's clear that: the Podesta emails came from a source who either voluntarily revealed his or her identity to WL because that supported the person's account, or WL informed the source that WL couldn't publish without this knowledge. And thus Assange or his trusted assistance know this S ID And the S is an insider, not a "state"/government actor or a foreign based agent. Why should that view be rejected? Do you see anything there implausible? If so, what? @ 2O : "I did not say that no evidence presented by Assange is credible simply because it comes from Assange." "In fact, I specifically referenced the fact that, were Assange presenting credible evidence, then attacking his credibility instead of addressing the evidence would indeed be an ad hominem. I said that Assange has not presented any evidence, and in the absence of evidence, I am disinclined to take his word for it." ----> @13 : "Delta1212 Primate Senior Members 2,267 posts Posted Today, 01:16 PM "I stopped believing anything Julian Assange says a long time ago. The man is a hypocritical egomaniac with a personal motto of 'privacy for me but not for thee.' "

@ 17 Again: if the patently shoddy attempt in post 17 isn't rebuked for its fallacies, how except moderator bias does one account for what would draw withering rebuke if it had come from an out-group member-- one pushing an unfavored opinion? Assange's claim is dismissed preemptively on nothing but the assertion that no evidence sourced on his word is receivable as credible for no other ground than that he is the source-- a classic ad hominem argument. For Swansont : "Exhibit D" _____________________ @ 16 : "Exhibit E"

First, Delta1212 @ 13 offers us an ad hominem argument against Assange. No challenge of that from CharonY or any moderator; yet ad hominem arguments are classic faux pas of reasoning. But, well, who cares? It's acceptable here to attack Assange in that manner. It's "in-group" approved practice. Second, In order for Assange to know that the source wasn't Russian or even depending on the Russians, he had to be aware of the source's identity--and he is. He has said the source comes from within the ranks of the U.S. political establishment. You weren't aware of this? You do know that Wikileaks requires sources to demonstrate that their claims are bona fide, right? You do know that, unless Wikileaks can verify either the data's veracity or the source's credibility beyond all doubt, or both, they don't publish, right? Thirdly, RE this: " cybersecurity analyses have shown that a security breach was behind the leaks, i.e. assuming legal access is more than unlikely, and I am not sure why you would try to argue otherwise." Which cybersecurity analyses? The servers and portable drives had been tainted as evidence before the F.B.I.'s own analysts bothered to examine them for this, hadn't they? Do we know which specific hardware was breached? Was it Oodesta's own? Some others in his e-mail circles? Who's word are we taking on this point? And why? Fourth, re-read this carefully, for it's exactly right: "Even Assange is not asserting that they were obtained illegally." {sic} Where's the usual moderator-enforced intellectual rigor invariably demanded "toute de suite" from the out-group's members? For Swansont: "Exhibit C"

@ 123 Let's be clear: I am reporting on my personal anecdotally-based experience here in this site--though that experience goes beyond my own posts and includes what I consider biased treatment of others with whom I have nothing more in common than posting comments here. In thread after thread of a non-science sort, secure in-group members hold forth ad libitem with nothing more beneath their high-wire act than anecdotal experience. And they're typically not called down for failing to present a raft of peer-reviewed data to back up their anecdotes. How about that!? True--I have certainly not done what it seems you'd like to require me to produce on demand: an annotated case file of examples which conclusively show to _your_ satisfaction that the bias I see as rife here exists. Tell me straight out if that is the sort of burden you're seeking to place me under. Otherwise, specifically, exactly how many examples do you require I submit? And, please: lay it all out in advance; I am not going to enjoy completing a deliberately tedious and onerous homework assignment only to learn that I must then follow up with a subsequent set of demands. If this were my professional work, I'd subpoena your entire record of moderating interventions and assign a staff of legal assistants to comb through it and compile from one hundred to five hundred of the most glaring examples of your biased judgements. Then, I'd call you to take the stand and testify under oath about that body of evidence. If you were the sort of reasonable person I would so prefer you to show yourself to be, instead of acting like I'm just under nothing short of a prosecutor's burden to build and present a case beyond a reasonable doubt, you'd instead receive my comments alone as sufficient cause for you to undertake some simple and voluntary introspection about your fairness as a moderator. Instead, a fascinating defensiveness is what characterizes your responses. Are you so completely alien to the concept that you might actually be biased in your practice here that the suggestion of it fills you with only resentment and not the slightest idea that there could be something to it and that, to see it, you needn't have a full legal brief prepared? Again: is your post @ 123 in your capacity as a moderator or something else? It's that kind of ambiguity I mean by a convenient double standard. ETA : IN this thread alone, for example, I had to restore the hyperlink to the New York Times article when a moderator deleted the link to the full article I'd included. That's an example of a candidate for a "Freudian slip"--even if inadvertently done. Then, in exchanges with Strange, I alone objected when he took my words out of context. Why didn't a moderator see fit to make that objection? @ 124 ••• The long term members here are the most factually honest people I've come across in any forum ••• ••• I can't join you in that judgement. As for this : ••• "you would see feisty arguments between everybody at sometime or other, regardless of how much they may like the person..... even between mods. Evidence is king and if someone believes the other is wrong then they will say so. There have been more than a few occasions when normally amiable members have had to 'have a shower'. The ones between people where a particular subject may be their day job are quite fun to watch. Peer review is alive and well. here." It's rather my point: you and they simply constitute this "in-group" I refer to. There is certainly nothing about such a group which precludes their disagreement among each other. Indeed, as they can nearly always be counted on for loyalty _to each _other_ vis à vis an out-group forum member, this intramural disputation they can show is the more comfortable for the fact that they know they're safely among their mutually protecting peers.

@ 11: RE: "I am surprised that OP does not take into consideration that the information was obtained illegally and did not actually expose any criminal actions (i.e. would not even come close to whistle blowing)." In fact, the best source (Julian Assange of Wikileaks) has repeatedly said that the data came from a source within the U.S. and, as I understand it, was one which may well have had legal access to the files. No one has shown anything in compelling public evidence to the contrary. No credible source has refuted Assange's assertions about the provenance of the data. Instead, the elite-supporting mainstream media harp on and on about Russian sources as though Assange had not definitively rebutted that claim. Note: we're concerned here with the e-mail files from John Podesta and their revelation's reamifications for the campaign of Hillary Clinton. This doesn't mean that Russian, on its own account, never makes attempts to break into and steal data via networked somputer communications systems. I don't doubt the Russians attempt this. The point, however, is that all of the information revealed was, according to all the best publicly-available information due to sources which were not dependent on the Russian government for access or for the files. The point is that, in taking into account the content of these revealed e-mail messages, not only were prospective voters doing nothing wrong, not only were they legally entiteled to take such information into account, the fact that many did so does not by any sane stretch of the imagination constitute "interference" or "meddling" in the U.S. election. As has been pointed out repeatedly, any reputable U.S. news organization which could have come into possession of these same data should have been eager to and expected to reveal them to the public in their reporting. Come on! ____________________ (Rrealclearpolitics.com) WikiLeaks' Julian Assange: Russian Government Was Not Source For Podesta, DNC Emails Posted By Tim Hains On Date December 15, 2016 JULIAN ASSANGE, WIKILEAKS: Our source is not the Russian government. SEAN HANNITY: So let me be clear: Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC. ASSANGE: Correct. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/15/wikileaks_julian_assange_russian_government_was_not_source_for_podesta_dnc_emails.html) Assange: "Our source is not a state party. So the answer -- for our interactions -- is no," Assange told anchor Sean Hannity from his quarters at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has lived under diplomatic protection since 2012. (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/04/politics/assange-wikileaks-hannity-intv/)

@ 121 Basically, my view is that the terms of the rules of behavior in these discussion fora are rather vague and that this is only partly due to the inherent nature of language itself. It's also partly due to the fact that vague terms allow the site's moderators and decision-makers to apply rules with a convenient arbitrariness that makes a comfortable seat for their own biases. In short, they and those ((ETA) other members) who are reliably their silent or vocal supporters constitute what amounts to a de facto “in-group,” here with a self-protecting culture that perpetuates the biases. Those of the in-group will typically deny their its existence and their part in it, seeing themselves as “just like everyone else here,” but they defend what amounts to a little closed-shop rule which keeps those who are “in,” “in,” and keeps the rest—especially those who don't openly conform to dominant opinion here—on the back foot, second-guessing what is allowed and what is not allowed. This does not mean that in the rules and their application there's a complete and total lack of any clear idea of what is not allowed. It means, rather, that there exists a double-standard of interpretation and application by which those who are seen as friendly and supportive get easier, less strict and more forgiving treatment in the supervision of the content of their comments, the rigor of their arguments and reasoning which others, not viewed as friendly and supportive are denied. It is very hard for me to escape the impression that if they're treated differently it is because they are not regarded as among the “in-group.” Nor am I claiming that it's impossible to find any exceptions at all in a site the homepage of which cites, at this writing : 926,277 Total Posts 83,845 Total Members . There are bound to be a relative few cases which serve as tokens to which the staff can point and claim that these (rather rare) examples prove that there isn't any such systematic bias or double-standard at work here. The point is that, even if taken all together, these cases fall very far short of demonstrating the typical practice. They demonstrate the atypical because they are not the same as what is usually done the great majority of the time. I don't mean to suggest that the above completely exhaust all the aspects of my views on the topic but it presents the essentials as I see them.

I'm leaving it at this for the day : Re: "It was your word. I am not a mind reader. False. It wasn't "my" word in the context in which _you_ used it in that instance. Thus, you took a word I used out of its original context and used it disingenuously in a different context. That's an intellectually dishonest tactic. And since you say you're not a mind reader, you ought to refrain from taking my words out of context. RE my: For what do I owe an apology specifically? & your: "Accusing them of hypocrisy when you really meant bias." See above. That's your opinion, not mine. Re : "Unsubstantiated claims of bias." Again, your opinion. I don't regard your opinion on that as having any definitive probative value as you're not a disinterested party to this discussion. "You could apologise to the whole membership for just being an annoying tick, while you are at it. :)" Implies that what you're finding as _my_ "being an annoying tick" in this case is a widely-held view. And you've taxed _me_ with unsubstantiated allegations! Again, do you speak from the position of one of the approved in-group here and have, by that place, a privileged status? I think an impartial arbiter is missing here.

@ 116 "Does that mean that you admit your original charge of hypocrisy for enforcing the rules was misguided and wrong?" No, it doesn't mean that. Note. ----> ETA : Actually, though this thread is entitled "Hypocrisy" the actual allegation is more correctly stated as "bias." So, again, in typical fashion, you substitute one word for another of mine to try a make a damming case that's not quite accurate. Can you explain your point? "would you care to apologise to the moderators now?" For what do I owe an apology specifically?

@113 "I can't really follow what you are saying here." I think you understand just fine. That's why you distorted my position--twice now--ignoring the qualifying phrases, even after I mentioned them. "You opened this thread to defend the right of a deluded crackpot to keep posting the same unscientific nonsense with no action to prevent it. Now you are (hypocritically?) trying to move the goalposts." No. Now I'm addressing answers to your specific posts @ 11O & 113 where you misstate and distort the plain and obvious meaning of my comments. __________ @ 114 "I pointed this out two weeks ago; you're just repeating the same empty argument. If you have nothing new to present, why should the thread remain open?" Let's see if I understand what's implied in your comments: I'm to justify to _you_, both moderator & discussion participant and no clear indication of when you're speaking as one but not the other, an allegation of persistent bias in moderators' routine practices here and you, as a prime example--as here in this very case where you're a personally-interested actor in the controversy--shall render a first opinion on whether this thread merits remaining open? I'm sorry--would you confirm for me: is 114 a thinly veiled threat or just the question of a peer participant? Because if it's the former, and you're asking me for examples of your own biased practice, then I may offer it as evidence of, at the very least, a person who is not mindful of a glaring conflict of interest-- itself a leading indicator of latent bias.

@ 110 : "!t is regularly suggested by people presenting their pet "theories". When questioned, or their errors pointed out, they say things like, "if you only have negative comments please go away." In fact, I am fairly sure that the crackpot you are defending* so vociferously said exactly that." No doubt. But in the specific case* you cited, you're ignoring three key qualifiers in my obeservation: "... I agree that no such type of post-- (1)that is, a purported answer to a query on a real science matter-- ought to be (2) allowed to stand unchallenged and uncorrected (3) as a valid response to a lay-reader's query. But that's never going to happen here in any case. No one is suggesting and no one has suggested anything as preposterous as allowing quackery on a scientific matter to go uncorrected. As for other cases, I have never seen an example of one here--that is, never in the case of an undisputed science-topic have I ever seen it urged that, a statement asserted as true about science, either as a reply to a reader's query or as a posting of some amateur's theory, should be granted immunity from critique or correction from other readers here, laymen or experts. _______________________ @ 111 : RE: "It seems absurd to present a hypothesis and not expect critical comments." See my comment just above. RE: ..."I hope, one day, that I can come up with an idea that I think is feasible and try to defend it; without spitting my dummy out." For American readers unfamiliar with British English: (Wikipedia) : "Pacifier, called a "dummy" or soother in some countries." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy ____________ * Tom O'Neil's postings RE the Voynich Manuscript Some further related reading on bias in science practice or among scientists : New York Times (Sunday) magazine: Neanderthals Were People, Too New research shows they shared many behaviors that we long believed to be uniquely human. Why did science get them so wrong? JAN. 11, 2017 By JON MOOALLEM

See also "The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics" by Steven Weinberg | January 19, 2017 Issue of The New York Review of Books nybooks.com http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/ An open access article. Deals with key issues and interpretive differences regarding QM. A review with historical background given.

I think your questions are excellent ones and I've wondered the same. You can judge for yourself by the replies how welcome such wondering aloud is at this site. By now, I've learned that when I have such questions I turn to a text, some other person or site I know --the last thing I'd do is post a question such as yours and expect better than "go read up on it and report back to us." I suspect that, if he or she could discover the what, how and why of a fundamental relationship between these and other seeemingly basic physical constants, that discovery would be any serious physicist's dream come true. _______________ I found a paper which I think is relevant to your questions. It's in ".pdf" "On the relation between mass of a pion, fundamental physical constants and cosmological parameters" Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic1 PH Division CERN CH-1211 Geneva 23 dragan.hajdukovic@cern.ch 1On leave from Cetinje, Montenegro link : https://www.google.it/url?q=https://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.4678&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjpqJa-hMLRAhVCwxQKHUjPBmsQFggUMAI&usg=AFQjCNHklsgiAx2ltO3lOtPf2on5PereLA

@ 3 : "How do you feel about the ban on candidates receiving campaign donations from non-citizens?" I think it's fine to allow resident-aliens to vote in all local elections--they should of course register like anyone else (I.e. only town, city, etc. ) where they live. But I favor the ban on direct contributions of cash to political campaigns at every level. Alien residents personally volunteering their time on a campaign is also acceptable in my opinion.

(Excerpt from Politico.com : http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/paul-ryan-town-hall-trump-obamacare-233577 ) By Rachael Bade. 01/13/17 12:07 AM EST "House Speaker Paul Ryan on Thursday night offered the fullest accounting of his own thinking on the direction of the nation since the election, even gently breaking from President-elect Donald Trump on controversial policies from Russia sanctions to Medicare reform. "Ryan also said the U.S. needed to step up our game in countering Russia after the nation's interference in the election. Trump throughout the entire campaign defended Russia and cast doubt on intelligence findings alleging cyber-intrusions. His pick for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, refused during his confirmation hearing this week to commit to continuing Russia sanctions. Ryan, however, didnt hold back his scorn for Putins ploys. I think we have to step up our game on Russia with respect to confronting Russia when they act like this, when they frustrate our interests, he said. I do believe they tried to affect our elections••• There is no place for that••• I do think sanctions are called for." ••• ••• _________________ My different view on "interference" in our elections. ["One man's "interference" is another's "useful information) Had U.S. voters wanted to weigh the importance of Trump's real or supposed ties to interests in Russia or to its president, Vladimir Putin, or to any other Russians as factors in their decisions about the best candidate for U.S. president, is there anyone who seriously doubts or questions their right to consider such aspects? It's a virtual certainty that some voters did just that: considered Trump's personal ties to Russians--and some of them voted for Clinton while others of them voted for Trump. The fact is that voters have a right to consider anything they regard as worthy of their time and attention in weighing up their voting decisions. Anything --no matter its source or the possible motives of the source(s), whether known or only guessed--is within their purview as for their decisions' criteria and bases. Thus, if information bearing on the election-- as the voters see it-- comes to them from whatever source, domestic or foreign, they have a right to either accept or refuse to take that information into account as, in their sole judgment, they see fit to do. No one has a right to require a voter to reveal how or why he or she voted in a secret balloting and no one has a right to require that a voter account for his decision. Thus, attempts by foreign individuals or groups to inform, advise or persuasde voters --openly or via hidden means-- are receivable or not according to the judgment of each individual voter. How else could people be free to vote as they see fit?-- whether it be wisely or foolishly, from fear or in fearlessness, for sound or absurd reasons and motives. Even if Vladimir Putin had avowed having stolen and leaked information for the expressed purpose of influencing voters, the voters have every right to decide whether or not to take this into account--just as they have the right to urge their fellow voters to accept or reject such an effort to influence them. (ETA) All of this prior to election-day. Once the ballots are cast and counted, once a result has come into view, the "rightness," the legitimacy, of the election and its results are properly confined only to whether some ballots were genuine or fraudulent and nothing else about them. Attempts after the ballots are counted to examine or question voters' motives, the grounds and criteria for their private decisions and who or what either did or might have influenced them--unless, of course, organized bribery or threats or intimidation can be shown to have happened-- are out of order and nobody's business to investigate.

@ 103 " A lot of people with limited knowledge of science search for answers to their questions and may find explanations on forums such as this one. (*) I don't want them mislead into thinking that numerology makes sense, that Einstein was wrong, or creationism is a reasonable idea." First, I agree that no such type of post--that is, a purported answer to a query on a real science matter--ought to be allowed to stand unchallenged and uncorrected as a valid response to a lay-reader's query. But that's never going to happen here in any case. No one is suggesting and no one has suggested anything as preposterous as allowing quackery on a scientific matter to go uncorrected. And, according to PhiForAll, this pass/fail permanent review committee does and must apply in all threads-- whatever their topics-- scientific or not. So your objection, which I share, apparently isn't really the point of locking down O'Neil's treatment of the VM. No one was going to draw some pernicious idea about a genuine science issue merely because O'Neil's theory on the VM was poorly conceived. I've already been told that "protecting science" isn't the main or the only motivation here. The point, it's claimed, is to check and counter shoddy reasoning without exception--which in practice can easily turn into simply shutting down any views which the defenders of sound reason here find beyond the pale whether they concern good science or something else. Given that, then all that's left is deliberating a bit over the best way to do that. Again, condescending lecturing which conjures images of a finger-wagging school-marm does not do credit to the image of scientists or their methods and important work. It actually harms, I think--to whatever the extent this site's actual influence may be--that image. That, I think, is what moved O'Neil to say that the place is managed in a closed-minded manner. These often used retorts don't enhance the image of science or even this site and I think you--I.e. mainly the site's management-- would do yourselves a big favor if you dropped all use of them--that is, especially on a moderator's part: "You were warned..." "If you don't like it / our rules etc. ... go somewhere else / start your own site." "Science doesn't care what you happen to like or dislike." "We don't have to provide a space for your crackpot theories." and, in general, when debating, it's very weak to say, in any of dozens of ways, "Why don't you just go away and leave us alone? " That's a very popular tactic when one is simply being argued right up against reason's hard wall. As you yourselves know only too well and as you never tire of reminding those whom you lecture for their shoddy theorizing, you hold virtually all the cards here. You don't even have to be polite or restrained. You can smack down those posts the reasoning of which you don't approve with condescending lectures. Or you could briefly explain the flaws and leave it at that. ________________ (*) All the more reason to consider the possibility that the tone in moderating posts here may be leaving a rather unflattering impression of science and scientists.

@ 97 Very good! There can actually be more than one opinion about what constitutes a waste of time. Now maybe you can help Swansont. He has a question @ 96-- and it's one that I see as troubling from one in his role here. ___________________ ETA : Re: "I've hopefully provided some signal, but it's way too noisy for me now. I'm OK with being this type of hypocrite." Excuse me but it was Tom O'Neil's effort which led me to compare searches on computer language parsing and the VM--that and my initial curiosity about his post on closed-mindedness. As I understand it, it's a sheer fluke that he wasn't already suspended or dismissed for persistent wild-ass guess-work. "The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks."

@ 87 & 89 : "You're really the only person arguing that the Lounge is unfairly misleading." The only one arguing the point--but I think you've leapt from that fact to the supposition that I'm also the only one who does or ever has _thought_ so. Had it not been for Tom O' Neil's posting about his "wild-ass guess work," I think it's a virtual certainty that I'd have needed far longer before I stumbled upon the fascinating thing called the Marpra parser. I only wish I understood programming so I could better appreciate this thing : from : https://irclog.perlgeek.de/marpa/2015-01-07 Perl 6 - the future is here, just unevenly distributed IRC log for #marpa, 2015-01-07 ← Previous day | Channels | #marpa index | Today | Next day → | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary All times shown according to UTC. Turn on filtering by nick Enable summary mode Time Nick Message 2 more elements. Show/hide. 00:12 jeffreykegler re AFL: perhaps it's just something we should keep in mind. 00:15 Note that the Earley sets in Libmarpa are a large, complex "compact data format" -- the major difference between Libmarpa's internal data and a bytecode would be that it represents potential parses, rather than a sequence of instructions. 01:32 My doings: 01:33 Over the past few days I've caught up with various backlogs -- the recent developer's release of Marpa::R2 is one result. 01:33 Now I'm back to working on the document describing the partial parses technique. It's taking a bit of time ... 01:34 not because there are actual problems with the technique, but because I want to document *why* the algorithm is correct, ... 01:34 which means proofs. 01:35 Not of everything, but definitely of those things which are of the sort where I say to myself, "I know this is true, but I can't remember why". 01:35 So I write up the "why?" and that in high falutin't terms is what's called a proof. 01:36 * falutin't -> falutin' 01:38 Another part of this is coming up with terminology, and I plan to borrow some from biology -- the partial parses use special lexemes and non-terminals to match up at the edges ... 01:38 and I will call these special symbols "nucleobases" and "nucleotides" by analogy with DNA ... 01:40 My method for putting the partial parse trees together can be thought of as kind of like DNA replication ... 01:41 A left edge has symbols (nucleotides) and these are matched to symbols to create a right edge and to "transcribe" the left edge of the old parse into the right edge of the new one. 01:42 Once both parses exist, the nucleotide symbols are matched up, and used to join the two parses together. 01:42 Anyway, going back to writing that up is what I'm doing at the moment. 3 more elements. Show/hide. 06:41 ronsavage Now, I'm going to play with a proof-of-concept grammar for POD. 4 more elements. Show/hide. ★★★ 15:50 jeffreykegler ronsavage: Between you and Jean-Damien we should soon have a Marpa-driven parse of the Voynich manuscript. 3 more elements. Show/hide. 18:09 jeffreykegler A question on perlmonks: "Parsing a config file with braces and nested braces -- http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=1112435 18:24 Continuing the DNA analogy, I may rename what I've been calling several things, including "partial parsing" and "constant space parsing". 18:25 I am thinking of calling it "strand parsing", on the idea that the partial trees are "strands" which the technique "transcribes" and joins together. 18:27 The DNA analogy has the disadvantage of importing a few high-falutin' biochemical, which could be seen as pretentious, ... 18:28 but I think it may have a real advantage -- many people intuitively the idea of the DNA code, and DNA spliting, joining and transcription ... 18:28 and it supplies a "mental picture" into which the details of my algorithm can fit. 2 more elements. Show/hide. 19:56 ronsavage Ah, yes, 'the Voynich manuscript'. I wrote a Marpa parser for that, but stored it in /tmp, and lost when I re-booted. Hahaha. ★★★ 19:58 As for the DNA connexion. I'm thinking your plan more resembles a zipper, and regrettably, many people are still very resistant to DNA and its connotations of evolution. 19:59 jeffreykegler I did think of sewing, seams and zippers, but in the case of DNA, you have the additional element that the two halves match up in a way that preserves information, which is crucial. 20:00 ronsavage As for http://irclog.perlgeek.de/​marpa/2015-01-07#i_9901243,I'll write a demo now. 20:02 jeffreykegler As for the anti-evolution element, my use of the analogy only involves the chemistry -- at the moment I would hope that the parses do *not* evolve through random mutation. 20:08 ronsavage Hmmm. Zips work precisely because the 2 sides match, but yes, the preservation-of-information argument is good. Your call 20:23 After a few test runs, I don't think Text :: Balanced :: Marpa is a good fit for reading config files. 2 more elements. Show/hide. ← Previous day | Channels | #marpa index | Today | Next day → | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary Powered by ilbot, built with the Perl programming language. Provided by Moritz Lenz. Please direct suggestions and bug reports to moritz on irc.freenode.net or moritz 'at' faui2k3 dot org. Imprint _______ http://jeffreykegler.github.com/Marpa-web-site/ http://savage.net.au/Marpa.html ________ It raised interesting questions--Interesting to me, at any rate : Can a machine parser detect incorrect grammar or syntax in a language--if it is indeed a language--such as the symbols/characters of the VM without one first discovering and supplying a trial grammar? Apparently, it's the lack of any grammar for the VM which would prevent its parsing the symbols--or, it might parse them but not produce any meaningful result in other than the same symbol set--which we don't know how to read.

>87 : "Even in the non-science areas like Politics, Religion, and the Lounge, we want critical thinking throughout." In that case, I think these are the explanatory terms which ought to be appended to The Lounge--with Exclamation mark to drive the point home. Instead of "Discuss life, work, school, anything!" you could put it this way, "Discuss life, work, school, 'anything,'BUT REMEMBER: we want critical thinking throughout !" give the poor punters a chance. RE : "I think you need to ask yourself about what you value in science." As much as anything else, I value science for the collegiality--not only beween scientists as fellow professionals but also between all those who esteem science as a pursuit for the good it _can_ produce. I value it for its robust character. It's sturdy and not some poor shrinking fragile thing--as one might suppose from the over-the-top reactions to some who tread off the reservation in their theorizing. I value it for the toleration it enbues in its best practitioners. I lament that in certain others, it incites a cult-like sectarianism which reminds me more of Scientology than of science. "If it's the wild-ass guesswork you're defending, then there are places on the web that will make you very happy. If you don't enjoy discussions that require reasoned, rational arguments, that don't allow people to make assertions they can't support, then we'll never make you happy. We'd like you to stay but we aren't going to start letting people do whatever they want in the Lounge. Most members understand that." Far, far, from "not enjoying" these, I do indeed enjoy and value them. It's just that I also value other things, too, and I see little or no serious danger to real science or professional scientists from lay people's "wild-ass guess-work" even in sites such as this one. _________________ "A mathematician’s work is mostly a tangle of guesswork, analogy, wishful thinking and frustration, and proof, far from being the core of discovery, is more often than not a way of making sure that our minds are not playing tricks." — Gian-Carlo Rota In Rota's 'Introduction' written (1980) to preface Philip J. Davis and Reuben Hersh, The Mathematical Experience (1981, 2012), xxii. "Mathematics is not a deductive science—that's a cliché. When you try to prove a theorem, you don't just list the hypotheses, and then start to reason. What you do is trial and error, experiment and guesswork." — Paul R. Halmos I Want to be a Mathematician: an Automathography in Three Parts (1985), 321.