Proton's personal language crusade--shall we all agree to change how we talk?

[proton]

We have no problems letting people discuss other concept of mass,..

Not according to Martin who said We at SFN have liked to keep it simple and have just one concept of mass, .... However that was a vague statement and needs clarification.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

But if you're using mock language and refusing to explain yourself, we don't understand your question.

Mock language? What is that supposed to mean? And why do you keep implying that I don't explain myself? I have stated quite clearly in nearly all posts in this and the other thread that I clearly state what I'm referring to when I do so and you insist on ignoring that fact and keep insinuating that I'm not precise in my language. Frankly it's starting to get very irritating.

 

And why do you keep insisting that this is "my" language? You clearly have a somewhat limited knowledge on this subject. Pick up a few relativity texts and do some more reading. Ever read A first course in general relativity by Bernard Schutz? Ever read Rindler's text? Ever read Gravitation by MTW? Ever read Ohanian's GR text? Ever read Mould's? Ever read Peeble's cosmology text? Ever read the American Journal of Physics?

 

You also failed to answer my question on momentum. Why is that? Don't you know how it's defined? I asked that question to make a point. If nobody responds to it then I can't make the point.

Edited June 30, 2009 by proton
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

Frankly it's starting to get very irritating.

 

Yes... As are you, Mr. Proton. You also need to lose the attitude. You're acting like a spoiled 4-year old.

[proton]

So there is no operational definition for that minority mass concept E/c^2.

You made a mistake here. In fact most physcists are ingorant on this point. Relativistic mass is not defined as m_rel = E/c². It's defined as the quantity m_rel in p = m_relv. In general these quantities are not the same. E.g. for a single photon m_rel = E/c² is an equality, not a definition.

[swansont]

And why do you keep insisting that this is "my" language? You clearly have a somewhat limited knowledge on this subject. Pick up a few relativity texts and do some more reading. Ever read A first course in general relativity by Bernard Schutz? Ever read Rindler's text? Ever read Gravitation by MTW? Ever read Ohanian's GR text? Ever read Mould's? Ever read Peeble's cosmology text? Ever read the American Journal of Physics?

 

Because you're the one belaboring the point.

 

I think the point Martin was trying to make (and apologies if it isn't) is that SFN isn't a bunch of physicists sitting around talking to each other, and delving into such details is just going to confuse the heck out of the person asking the question about basic relativity. So while relativistic mass may be a perfectly fine and useful concept to use for someone who's going to spend (or has spent) time studying General Relativity, and reads the texts you list, this describes almost none of the people asking questions here at SFN.

 

IMO, one of the big problems I see in getting people to connect with science is the inability or unwillingness for some people to put the conversation at the level that the audience can understand (though there are certainly some who are great at it). But the simple fact is that you can't give a graduate-level answer to a neophyte and expect them to comprehend, and if you insist on doing that anyway, it's not fair to be disappointed when they don't.

 

I understand frustration at having to give a simpler answer when you think (actually, know) the full picture is more interesting, but the full picture is also overwhelming, and that's to be avoided. What we're left with is giving the useful part of the picture, and not worrying about the part that's has to be left under wraps until later. The useful part of this picture is that mass is rest mass. Yes, you can define it to be other things, but what's the point in further confusing someone who has a question (or worse, a misconception) about the basics of relativity by giving them the answer they won't be ready for until they've studied for a few more years?

[proton]

Because you're the one belaboring the point.

That is absolutely not true. If you and others keep posting poor/erroneous arguments then don't claim I'm belaboring the point when I address/correct them. E.g. it was Martin who started this thread. I was happy with what I wrote. It was he who came along several days later with the false impression that You want us to use "mass" to mean E/c^2 and you who contributed to prolonging it with notions like If what I mean by mass is different from what you mean by mass ... Both comments are so wrong its as if neither of you read or paid attention to what I wrote. E.g. it's crystal clear that you erroneously thought that I was saying that when I used the term “mass” I was going to mean “relativistic mass”. That is incorrect. Why you, and the sarcastic and irritating iNow, came to that conclusion is beyond me since I’ve never written anything that even remotely suggested that. My posts in the other thread are examples demonstrating that is not the case in fact.

 

People come here to learn and I explain things such that they don't walk away with erroneous ideas. I have over a decade of first hand experience seeing all sorts of errors people make because they are merely told that "mass = rest mass." That is why I explain more than you choose to - Period.

 

If you want to ban me from this forum for explaining in more detail than you do then please do so and stop wasting my time with this thread. Also please stop making these false assertions.

I understand frustration at having to give a simpler answer when you think (actually, know) the full picture is more interesting, but the full picture is also overwhelming, and that's to be avoided.

That is hardly the case. E.g. there are are huge variety of when this kind of thing might come up. For example; someone might simply ask "Does light have mass?" You would write "No" whereas I would write "A photon has zero rest mass, since it can't be at rest, non-zero relativistic mass since it has momentum, non-zero passive gravitational mass, since its effected by a gravitational field and non-zero active gravitational mass since it can generate a gravitational field." Please explain how that overwhelmed you?

 

I was going to make an point above by asking mooeypoo a question. He decided not to answer it. I'll ask you - What does the term momentum mean?

Edited July 1, 2009 by proton

[swansont]

That is hardly the case. E.g. there are are huge variety of when this kind of thing might come up. For example; someone might simply ask "Does light have mass?" You would write "No" whereas I would write "A photon has zero rest mass, since it can't be at rest, non-zero relativistic mass since it has momentum, non-zero passive gravitational mass, since its effected by a gravitational field and non-zero active gravitational mass since it can generate a gravitational field." Please explain how that overwhelmed you?

 

We aren't talking about whether it will overhwhelm me. I've met a lot of people whose eyes would glaze over by such an explanation. And our goal is to not have that happen.

[The Bear's Key]

In the last 10 years or so, and even longer ago in alot of cases, the concept of relativistic mass has been removed.

 

That is widely held misconception among both physicists and laymen alike. For this reason, Don Koks, the physicist who maintains the Relativity FAQ, updated the FAQ on relativistic mass to reflect the actual usage.

proton, you do realize what Klaynos said is fairly true. Would you have agreed if Klaynos instead phrased it as "has mostly been removed"?

 

From the link you posted...

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html

While rest mass is routinely used in many areas of physics, relativistic mass is mainly restricted to the dynamics of special relativity.

The one mass is routine and widespread, yet the other's use is somewhat restricted.

 

 

And...

Because of this, a body's rest mass tends to be called simply its "mass".

 

Obviously, even the FAQ maintainer you linked to agrees that rest mass is usally just labeled as "mass", and he doesn't counter its usage in that manner.

 

 

Plus the older version of that FAQ (in the year 2001) had even implied the discountinued use of relative mass.

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20011117161604/http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html

Of the two, the

definition of invariant mass is much preferred

over the definition of relativistic mass. These days

when physicists talk about mass in their research they always mean invariant mass

.

........

 

In a 1948 letter to Lincoln Barnett Einstein wrote

 

"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass [math]M = m/(1-v2/c2)1/2[/math] of a body for which no clear definition can be given.

It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m.

Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."

 

The viewpoint above, emphasising the distinction between mass, momentum, and energy, is

certainly the "modern" view

. Fifty years later,

can relativistic mass be laid to rest?

All emphasis mine, of course.

 

 

 

 

I consider the mayan culture pretty modern for its time' date=' so I don't see a problem using "mayan" instead of what you consider "modern". Texts are also more specifically defined as books, so I will be using books instead. The term 'force' is used in F=ma, and 'ma' sounds like the abbreviation to "mom" so I will be using "Mother" instead.

 

Now. Can you talk to me, understand what I'm saying, and respond properly if I do any of the above, specifically if I would've done it *without* putting up the index of what I changed and to what after?[/quote']

 

That was a very poor counter example mooeypoo.

I think it's a great example by mooeypoo.

 

However, if you rather another one, let's use something that's commonly familiar to most of us.

 

When a doctor gets your weight on the scale, they'll ask you remove heavy clothing and shoes: they're not going to list different values for clothed/unclothed weights. And even if you transfered the paperwork to another doctor, they'd know the listed weight is unclothed, rather than unclothed.*

 

In the same manner, it's easier to think of rest mass (perhaps "unclothed", or simply just the base mass without additions).

 

 

*(But in special cases, not medically related, you'd probably have everything on you weighed -- clothes, backpack, etc)

[proton]

We aren't talking about whether it will overhwhelm me.

If that wouldn't overwhelm you then why do you think it would overwhelm someone else. That explanation wouldn't have overwhelmed me at all even before I started studying physics.

I've met a lot of people whose eyes would glaze over by such an explanation. And our goal is to not have that happen.

I sincerly doubt that and I'm not about to dumb down my responses so that all 12 year olds will understand them.

 

You didn't answer my question on momentum. Why?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

proton, you do realize what Klaynos said is fairly true.

No. As I said that is clearly not true. Even physicists who have published journal articles against rel-mass have stated that what Klaynos claimed is not true. E.g. as a benchmark those authors note that 40%% of modern textbooks use rel-mass to some extent.

 

If you claim otherwise then please provide hard evidence and not merely state a claims.

 

Your counter example is as poor as mooeypoo's. I had explained that if only 60% of physicists don't use rel-mass then forcing everone to not use it is a bad idea. That's like that 40% of all men don't drink soda and 60% do and then serving 100% of them soda. If that is stil unclear then I'll say this - You don't logically force everyone to do what 60% of the group does merely because they could win a vote. In physics we don't vote. We each explain things in the best way we see fit. To explain something in what we believe to be a poorer way because 60% of the group wouldn't is a bad idea.

 

I'm not commenting on arguements about rel-mass since arguements like that are useless. People form opinions on this subject religiously and its silly to argue about it so I refuse to.

 

Since nobody is stating I cannot refer to other notions of mass I will continue to do so and will no longer read this very silly thread. If moderators feel otherwise then PM me.

 

Proton - out!

Edited July 1, 2009 by proton
Consecutive posts merged.

[insane_alien]

If that wouldn't overwhelm you then why do you think it would overwhelm someone else. That explanation wouldn't have overwhelmed me at all even before I started studying physics.

 

you are not everyone, and while i doubt the veracity of your claim my point still stands that you are not everyone. just because you find a subject comes naturally does not mean that this is the same for everyone.

 

i have a love of chemistry and the subject comes easily to me but i know this is not true for many people even those who pick chemistry to study in university.

 

I sincerly doubt that and I'm not about to dumb down my responses so that all 12 year olds will understand them.

 

so you would deny people knowledge because they do not know the precursors necessary to understand a subject?

 

i personally find this incredibly distasteful. everyone has a right to knowledge. if they do not possess the knowledge to fully understand the concept i will simplify it down to a level where they can understand the basics behind it and point them in the direction of resources where they can learn the precursors necessary to fully appreciate the concept.

 

should we ban those who cannot paint masterpieces from art galleries? should we ban those who cannot play an instrument from musical concerts and buying CD's? should we ban those who cannot write novels from reading?

 

everyone has a right to know.

[iNow]

Your counter example is as poor as mooeypoo's. I had explained that if only 60% of physicists don't use rel-mass then forcing everone to not use it is a bad idea.

 

Strawman. Nobody is being forced not to use the term, just to clarify when they are putting forth a non-standard usage.

[proton]

I forgot that I asked two questions above. I'll check this thread to see if I got a response from those. Otherwise there's nothing of interest for me here. In my personal opinion its just a bunch of very poor arguements.

[swansont]

If that wouldn't overwhelm you then why do you think it would overwhelm someone else. That explanation wouldn't have overwhelmed me at all even before I started studying physics.

 

 

Well good for you, Pete. Not everyone is so capable.

 

I sincerly doubt that and I'm not about to dumb down my responses so that all 12 year olds will understand them.

 

Here's where you and I differ. A lot of people find science to be inaccessible, and one reason is the attitudes of scientists who can't be bothered to explain science at a level that the general public can understand. Those 12-year-olds who get the brush-off never get interested in it. I've taught and tutored, I do public outreach at work. And I spend time here, because I like explaining physics to people interested in physics, even if they aren't physicists or studying to be physicists. That's the primary audience at SFN. Keeping answers at the proper level of discussion — appropriate to the question — is one thing to keep in mind here.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If that wouldn't overwhelm you then why do you think it would overwhelm someone

No. As I said that is clearly not true. Even physicists who have published journal articles against rel-mass have stated that what Klaynos claimed is not true. E.g. as a benchmark those authors note that 40%% of modern textbooks use rel-mass to some extent.

 

Someone familiar with science and statistics should be able to recognize that this is a bad argument. 40% of textbooks may not represent 40% of physicists, because a lot more students use the lower-level texts, and fewer use any particular specialized, higher-level texts.

 

Where did that claim originate, anyway? I doubt that it is inclusive — the majority of texts wouldn't bother with it because they don't go into relativity. Is this 40% of relativity texts, making it a minority even within that sub-field?

[mooeypoo]

That explanation would overwhelm me. I understood what you said, and I do know my physics, but it would require a bit of effort. Maybe it is the fact English isn't my primary language, maybe not, in either case, we are trying to help people understand physical concepts even when they're not physicists or physics-oriented.

 

Specially when an obviously confused member asks a question that SHOWS he needs some help understanding these concepts. If you want to appear all smart and knowledgeable, publish a paper, where (sadly) you can use however high language you wish and no laymen will ever understand you. If you're answering a member that has some trouble understanding you, you're expected a bit of cooperation.

[proton]

swansont - the only reason I'm checking this thread now is to wait for your response to my question regarding the definition of momentum. Please either respond to it or state in no uncertain terms that you won't be responding to it. I'm not sure if you keep missing it of choose not to answer from some very odd reason. I find it quite odd that you don't mind asking me all sorts of questions but the one question that I ask goes totally ignored. Why do you suppose that is?

Edited July 2, 2009 by proton

[GutZ]

Proton let's put it this way. Say you have no carpentry skills and you ask my help with explaining it to you. Now assume I am know everything about it. Now let say I explain it to you as if you had my level of knowledge and experience with carpentry, What do you think the probability of you being able to build that deck? Remember you have like virtually no experience or knowledge.

 

My sole purpose was to help you build a deck, so although my skills are great I have to take into account that another person might not be. If it doesn't make progress or if the deck doesn't get built the interaction is meaningless. We tend to waste both our times.

 

There is goal involved. That is your goal for replying right? I see you generally want to help, but you are just making it harder on yourself as well as wasting your own time.

[swansont]

swansont - the only reason I'm checking this thread now is to wait for your response to my question regarding the definition of momentum. Please either respond to it or state in no uncertain terms that you won't be responding to it. I'm not sure if you keep missing it of choose not to answer from some very odd reason. I find it quite odd that you don't mind asking me all sorts of questions but the one question that I ask goes totally ignored. Why do you suppose that is?

 

There's no value in answering it. You seem to be arguing a different point than everyone else in this thread.

[proton]

There's no value in answering it.

That is quite incorrect. If you'd answer the question then you'd see that the purpose of it has everything to do with this thread and the points you attempted to make. It's such a trivial and easy question. I suspect that you know that I'd strongly argue my point if you responded and that is why you refuse to do so. I challenge you to prove me wrong by posting the definition of momentum. After all it was you who claimed that we all have to mean the same thing by each term or confusion arises, did you not? So post what "everyone" means when they write the term "momentum" please.

 

Then again if you refuse to answer it also demonstrates my point quite well too.

You seem to be arguing a different point than everyone else in this thread.

Wrong. The people who posted in this thread want to debate the usefulness of rel-mass. I never had a desire to debate the concept since it's a fact that any such debates is ultimately a waste of time. You can't argue about what is useful to one person because everyone thinks differently. I've only responded to correct misinformation that has been posted in this thread, e.g. what I supposedly wanted people do do etc.

[mooeypoo]

Okay, proton, you seem to have missed swansont's point. Regardless, I'll answer your question:

 

The physical definition of momentum is p=mv

 

Mind you, relativistic momentum is slightly different.

 

Photon momentum, for that matter, is entirely different:

(source: http://frank.mtsu.edu/~phys2020/Lectures/Part_2__L6-L11/L8/Relativistic_Momentum/body_relativistic_momentum.html )

 

As most physics terminology, it relies on mathematical definitions. We use the descriptions of it to simplify the mathematical definition, but that doesn't mean the words of the definition are better..

 

So.. there are several "types" of momentum.. maybe you would like to tell us what you mean?

[proton]

Okay, proton, you seem to have missed swansont's point.

I understand his point quite well, thank you. I hope we're not going to get into a debate about whether I undertand his point now, are we??

Regardless, I'll answer your question:

 

The physical definition of momentum is p=mv

 

Mind you, relativistic momentum is slightly different.

 

Photon momentum, for that matter, is entirely different:

(source: http://frank.mtsu.edu/~phys2020/Lectures/Part_2__L6-L11/L8/Relativistic_Momentum/body_relativistic_momentum.html )

 

Thanks for answering. Now I can make the point I've wanted to for days now!! Just to make sure that there is no confusion about what my point will be let me recall for you why I asked this question. Recall what swansont wrote

If what I mean by mass is different from what you mean by mass (or whatever term you wish to choose)' date=' then the discussion grinds to a halt right there. Common terminology is like the "handshaking" the fax machine (or any other communication protocol) does at the beginning of the transmission. Without it you are lost. You are Humpty Dumpty, saying, "When I use a term, it means whatever I choose it to mean — "nothing more, and nothing less," and then it's impossible to discern what was actually said, because none of the words are meaningful to anyone else.

[/quote']

If you have a lot of experience reading physics literature then you might know that this rarely if ever happens, even when the same exact term is used. The context almost always tells you the meaning of a term. And if not once one states what one means there can be no confusion. In other cases I've explained things in the following way. When someone once asked me something like whether the gravitational field of a body is a function of the body's speed. I responded with something like "The mass of the body (whereby mass I will mean relativistic mass) varies with speed and this ends up meaning that the gravitational field also depends on speed, the field of which is rather complex so one has to be careful." I qualified what I said because its a pain to keep writing "relativistic" before mass in each and every instance. So I made it clear that this was what I was doing. Thus the context determines the meaning.

 

Now the particular branch of phyysics can also determine the meaning of a term. In analytical mechanics the term "momentum" means canonical momentum and that can end up being angular momentum if the conjugate variable is an angle. In Newtonian vector mechanics momentum is defined as p = mv, i.e. linear mechanical momentum. Same in relativity if the m is relativistic mass (which was what motivated Richard C. Tolman to define it as such). However if you were to pick up a quantum mechanics text then this would not be true. In the context of quantum mechanics the term "momentum" means "canonical momentum". In applications like a charged particle moving in a magnetic field the linear mechanical momentum is different than the canonical momentum. This is an important point that I'm sure most people are unaware of. However if you were to pick up a relativity text then the term "momentum" might be 4-momentum. MTW does this but the authors are very clear on what they mean.

 

So there is

 

(1) Linear mechanical momentum

(2) Canonical momentum

(3) 4-momentum

 

Telling me not to refer to relativsitic mass is like saying never use the term "canonical momentum" or "4-momentum".

[swansont]

That is quite incorrect. If you'd answer the question then you'd see that the purpose of it has everything to do with this thread and the points you attempted to make. It's such a trivial and easy question. I suspect that you know that I'd strongly argue my point if you responded and that is why you refuse to do so. I challenge you to prove me wrong by posting the definition of momentum. After all it was you who claimed that we all have to mean the same thing by each term or confusion arises, did you not? So post what "everyone" means when they write the term "momentum" please.

 

Then again if you refuse to answer it also demonstrates my point quite well too.

 

I know you'd strongly argue your point. The problem being, you wouldn't be arguing about the same point that others are arguing about. That's why there's no value in it. I have no doubt that whatever definition I gave, that you would be able to find a different definition given by someone else.

 

That isn't the point.

 

Wrong. The people who posted in this thread want to debate the usefulness of rel-mass.

 

And here you've confirmed it. I'm not here to argue the usefulness of relativistic mass.

 

I never had a desire to debate the concept since it's a fact that any such debates is ultimately a waste of time. You can't argue about what is useful to one person because everyone thinks differently. I've only responded to correct misinformation that has been posted in this thread, e.g. what I supposedly wanted people do do etc.

 

It becomes an even larger waste of time when you argue points that others aren't arguing.

 

——

 

If someone uses "mass" to mean rest mass, and someone else uses it to mean relativistic mass, it will cause confusion, since they are not interchangeable.

 

That statement makes no claim about the usefulness of the concept or how widespread it is.

[mooeypoo]

The context almost always tells you the meaning of a term.

Not when your peers don't understand, or are unsure of, the context you are using it. And not when the context keeps changing.

 

proton, it's not like only a single person did not understand your context or had a hard time with your use of terms - the entire posting-membership of this thread is insisting that you get off your high horse and start making sense for the sake of mutual understanding.

 

You can insist that everyone's an idiot and misses your point until you're blue in the face, but that will not change the fact that if you don't start using conventional, *CLEAR* definitions, no one will want to debate you, because the debate will be absolutely pointless.

 

Cosmology and Astronomy and Physics PhDs, who deal with these terms, definitions and highly technical papers on a daily basis have told you this, along with others who are "just" knowledgeable in physics.

 

 

We're not here to compare intellect sizes, proton, we're here for a useful debate. Stop being the lone gunmen trying to put his sattle size on display, and get back on with the program.

 

~moo

[proton]

..but that will not change the fact that if you don't start using conventional, *CLEAR* definitions,.

This is another example of a poor arguement. You'r claim that I don't use clear definitions is bogus. You would never be able to find a post where the definition of any term I used was not 100% clear. I can't help it if this simple fact is not getting across to you.

 

And don't give me this nonsense about experts since I personally know plenty of experts in various fields of physics who publish just as much, if not more, than the people here - whom I have no idea who they are by the way. And those people would never present such arguements in their lives. Don't confuse the people who choose to post in discussion forums as being representative of the fields.

 

You're said you're an undergraduate. I've been a physicist for over 20 years so please don't give me this nonsense you're now giving me about so called authorities.

 

And I find your attitude quite poor. Chill out please. Moderators should not be so irritating.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I know you'd strongly argue your point. The problem being, you wouldn't be arguing about the same point that others are arguing about. That's why there's no value in it.

You posted an arguement based on the notion of "common terminology." I responded to that post by asking you to define the term momentum so I could make my terminology. So your claim that I'm not arguing the same point others are is quite incorrect.

 

You are referring to other arguments made by people here. I find them to be poor arguments and I know that people are pretty closed minded in this subject so I choose not to participate.

If someone uses "mass" to mean rest mass, and someone else uses it to mean relativistic mass, it will cause confusion, since they are not interchangeable.

This is a perfect example of what I meant by a poor arguement. You keep assuming that I intended to use or have in the past used the term "mass" to mean something besides "rest mass" even though I explained in great details this has not happend and is not going to happen. I explained this several times. There is no example where people are not 100% clear on what I mean. If I choose to say "Below by mass I will mean relativistic mass" it is only to make the writing easier for me since its easier to write mass than relativistic mass. It is just for the sake of ease of typing, nothing more. And when that is said its not possible to make a mistake on what the term means. This is the same idea of saying in the quantum section "Below by momentum I will mean canonical momentum".

Edited July 3, 2009 by proton
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

This is another example of a poor arguement. You'r claim that I don't use clear definitions is bogus. You would never be able to find a post where the definition of any term I used was not 100% clear. I can't help it if this simple fact is not getting across to you.

 

And I find your attitude quite poor. Chill out please.

Alrighty then, there's no point in a discussion, is there?

 

~moo

[proton]

Alrighty then, there's no point in a discussion, is there?

 

~moo

I kept saying that above many times. You'd be wise to lock this thread otherwise everyone will keep trying to draw me into a deabate that I had stated I will not participate in. Edited July 3, 2009 by proton

[mooeypoo]

If there's no discussion, stop insisting there is one. Regardless, I don't quite see how you would be in any position to give any moderator "advice" on how to run threads.

 

I do recommend you make your point already and stop insisting you're the only person in the world who knows physics the way physics is supposed to be.

 

~moo

 

p.s: No one forces you to participate in any debate. If you don't want to, you should just stop debating. We don't lose any sleep over this particular one, I assure you; our questions were meant to see if we can get a discussion - a contributing discussion - going, but if you don't think you should cooperate with that idea, you're more than welcome to stop "being drawn back" here.

 

I must say,though, that you can't possibly expect to patronize people and then expect them to ignore it, or be totally surprised when they answer you back. Get with the program.