Re: In search of the perfect Disassembler

T.M. Sommers wrote:
> Beth wrote:
> > T.M. Sommers wrote:
> >> Beth wrote:
> >>> T.M. Sommers wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Normal matter cannot exceed the speed of light. If
> >>>> tachyons exist, broken speed limits will be the least of
> >>>> our worries.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, re-read your physics textbooks and you will note
> >>> a _very crucial_ "semantic" in the way it's phrased...
> >>
> >> I suggest you re-read yours. Taylor and Wheeler is a good
> >> place to start. Come back after you have mastered it.
> >
> > Ooh, get you...it's "handbags" time, eh? ;)
>
> Let's see: you *tell* me to re-read my physics books, I *suggest*
> that you re-read yours, but I'm the one with the Lady Bracknell
> attitude.

You stupid, stupid man...

You talk about "persecution complex"...who says I was telling _YOU_ to
re-read your physics textbook? I was NOT talking to you personally in the
slightest...

English "re-uses" the word "you" for both the singular and plural third
person...hence, in order to ascertain who I was talking to, perhaps you
should have checked the wider context...which was:

1. That I re-asserted what you were asserting, just with "some other
details"...

2. That I said "T.M.'s on the money here", as an explicit reference to your
correctness in the matter...

3. That all references to you personally were made _IN THE THIRD PERSON_...

Really, honestly and truly...I was NOT speaking to you personally
here...that was a "you plural"...a "y'all"...more specifically addressed to
"snowwman", in this context, as my entire intention was actually to say:
"Sorry, snowman, but _YOU_ should re-read your textbook because T.M.'s
_EXACTLY RIGHT_ to say that normal matter cannot exceed the speed of
light"...

You stupid, stupid ***...you know what you've gone and done, don't you?

I posted in _AGREEMENT_ with you...to _SECOND_ what you'd said...I was
_AGREEING_ with you and then merely "backing that up", so to speak, with
"more details" (you mentioned "normal matter could not exceed the speed of
light"...I was basically posting to just add the explanation of the
"because it would require infinite energy" point...which, further, I stress
was actually about providing enough "context" so that posters could fire up
"Goggle", pop in "speed of light infinite energy" and Hopefully find a
wealth of material that _CONFIRMS_ your point _ENTIRELY_...it was an
attempt to lay the matter to rest, actually)...

BUT...BUT...you "presumed" that I was posting to say that you were
"wrong"...in no way was I doing so...if you'd _READ THE CONTENT_, then, as
I say, you'd notice the "clues":

1. I was seconding that you could not exceed the speed of light...

2. I explicitly stated that you were "on the money here"...which might be a
bit "colloquial", admittedly, but, of course, means "T.M.'s assertions are
correct on this matter"...in fact, "on the money" tends to emphasise an
even stronger correctness, as in: "he's got _every bit_ correct"...

3. You were referred to in the third person throughout...

Do you see what you did there?

What could be called "friendly fire"...in your long-standing "quest" to
attack me personally, you made a completely false presumption that I would
only post to disagree with you or state that you are wrong...in fact, at no
point did I do that...I explicitly stated that you were "on the money" with
your facts...the "third person" was also a "big clue" that the post was not
specifically addressed to you...

In your impatience to "crush" me, you failed to actually read the post
sufficiently well to realise that I was posting 100% in _SUPPORT_ of
you...totally...unequivocially so...

The only reason for the "additional bits" was not any form of "case against
what you said" but adding my own "spin" on the issue...well, it would have
been a rather pointless post to have just posted "Yep" (Alex style) in
agreement and that's it...also, as you know, that's not the kind of posts I
typically write, anyway...

So, I was NOT opposing you at all...stop looking at the "minutia" of each
sentence and look at the WIDER CONTEXT of the post:

I did state "re-read your physics textbook" but "you" in English is
ambiguous...best to wait and "establish context" before ripping anyone's
head off...what was following?

Oh, yes, that's right...I then _SECONDED_ that you could not "exceed the
speed of light" and just added the _reason_ for that...which was "it
requires infinite energy" (this was factually correct, was it not? You did
state this was perhaps too "elementary physics" for you...but, of course,
_AGAIN_, I was NOT actually addressing you...I was posting in _AGREEMENT_
with you, I was _FULLY AWARE_ that _YOU_ (in a personal context) were fully
aware of this "elementary physics"...this recap of "elementary physics", of
course, was for those who have not done the "course" that you have in the
subject...I know _YOU_ know "elementary physics" but, generally speaking,
this isn't an assumption that applies more widely to the "general
populous"...and it only requires _ONE_ person who "doesn't know" for the
attempt at a better explanation to be justified)...

You entirely misread my original post of _AGREEMENT_...

You entirely misread my response where I was trying to clarify the inital
"misreading" (okay, perhaps I should not have done the "why are you picking
on me?" stuff in that response BUT, well, you were...I was posting to
support you and then was "ripped apart" for doing so...this is not the only
time you've attributed "evil intentions" to my postings that were NOT
THERE...I'm sorry but if you DON'T actually have any "grudge" and are NOT
actually "picking on me" then your behaviour and responses give the
completely opposite impression...I post to say "you're right" and then
this, apparently, warrants as thorough and ceaseless a "character
assassination" as you can muster...as the saying goes, "with friends like
these, who needs enemies?")...

You also entirely misread the "joke" about "time paradoxes" at the end
(though loosely based on "a grain of truth", the entire context was simply
a "joke" on how "mind-bendingly impossible" it all is :)...

I "poke fun" at sci-fi - Captain Kirk shooting Klingons with "disco
lights"? Ooh, "highly serious subject" there...clearly a "serious tone of
voice" with the I-would-Hope obviously _SARCASTIC_ "disco lights"
reference - and you even misread this as some "recommendation of learning
physics by watching sci-fi on TV"...bloody hell! Where on Earth are you
getting this all from? You so seem to "hate" me that you instantly imagine
the worst and then ascribe it lock, stock and smoking barrel on me...

As I say, it's like you're convinced I'm "satan's whore" or something and
that everything I do is automatically "inherent evil"...

Because how else can we explain how you could have repeatedly
misinterpreted every single thing I said to such a degree? Can you see how
with such an assault of "misreading" that it's nigh-on impossible for me to
believe someone - especially with your smarts - could be doing such a
catalogue of errors in a row accidentally? I have to assume that it's
willful and delibrate...or, indeed, that you have a serious "communication"
problem with other people or something?

Unlike what I've received from you, though, I thought "benefit of the
doubt" that you've got some smarts...so, it must be _willfull_ and
_delibrate_...you just "hate" me or something to do this...even there, you
see, I am still trying to be "supportive" of you but it's like you just
won't let me do that...are you "stupid" or are you just "malicious"? Well,
I thought "malicious" was "kinder" - "benefit of the doubt" - in the sense
that you're perfectly aware of what you're doing...you just "don't like me"
or something like that...

BUT, if you are contending that this isn't the case, then this catalogue of
misreadings and misinterpretation has to be put down to you being an
idiot...a total moron...an imbecile...not regards your "facts", by the way
(indeed, as I say, it was your clear intelligence that had me initially
rule out the possibility of you just being "so dumb" to not even realise
you've done nothing but misread my posts over and over...and assume you
must be doing it delirbately for some other "motive"), but your ability to
communicate with others...

Well, I had _ZERO_ intention of any "battle" with you in the first
place...geez Louise, I was weighing in on _YOUR_ "side" originally,
seconding what you said...trying to, in fact, make roughly the point of
"T.M. knows what he's talking about here, so it would be wise to listen to
him"...I tried to "clarify" (okay, okay, I took your head off a little in
those further responses...but understand the "tiredness" that I have that
_every single time_ we're in a thread together, you instantly turn to
"attack!"...of which this is the perfect demonstration, I post in _SUPPORT_
of what you say and even this is turned around to "attack!", as well...even
when I post in agreement of what you say, you automatically read it as "an
attack", even though it in no way whatsoever was such at all in any regard
or to any extent at all)...

So, I'm not going to "battle" any further...because I fracking "come in
peace" to _SUPPORT_ you in the first place, anyway...gives me a great
"motivation" to be "civil and polite" to you, as you often insist, when,
again, even good intentions are misconstrued (on some "automatic basis"
that I'm saying it) as an "attack", anyway...I repeat, if you want
"politeness" then please may I see some from you first to justify my need
to do this for you in return...because it's hardly "polite" to rip
someone's head off when they post to _SUPPORT_ you...

> Well, here's something else she said

"Something else"?

When did we get the "something" in the first place, for this to be a
"something else"?

Wait, is this the problem? Are you have large parts of the discussion in
your own head but not actually putting it into your posts? In your own
mind, there's probably be lots of quotations from Lady Bracknell (by the
way, I confess ignorance: Who the heck is Lady Bracknell?)...and, so, to
you, this is "something else"...but to the rest of us, who only have what
you write - unable to see what's going on in these large parts of the
conversation that happen only in your own mind (where it seems, I'm
"inherent evil", irrespective of what I actually am out here in the "real
world") - this is "something" here, not "something else"...as we've had
nothing as yet to qualify this as "else"...

> that suits you to
> a T: "I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural
> ignorance. Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it
> and the bloom is gone." (I assume the 'handbag' is a reference
> to Lady Bracknell; otherwise I have no idea what you are talking
> about.)

No, not at all...I have no idea who "Lady Bracknell" is...

It's a reference to a common joke (I'm not sure if this does or doesn't
"translate" outside the UK...if it doesn't, then, sorry, I didn't realise I
was being "regional" at the time of stating it)...the basic concept of
which is that if someone is being "bitchy", then "out come the handbags" to
bash each other over the heads with...a delibrately "camp" mickey-take of a
couple of teenage "Sharon and Tracey" characters, having what one could
refer to as a "bitch fight" with their "handbags"...

Actually, the more I think this one over now, the more I realise that this
is entirely "regional" to the UK, isn't it?

Okay, sorry about that...I wasn't thinking straight there and forgot the
"international audience" wouldn't be aware of this "regional
reference"...you probably have no idea what a "Sharon and Tracey" is
either, yes? "Yes, but...no, but...yes, but...no, but"...

I do apologise...I didn't consider the "regionality" of it and is, thus, a
bit of a disaster of an idiom to use there...

In short, it's a "camp" (not serious; So, please, don't take it that way)
joke to make when a comment could be interpreted as a little
"bitchy"...generally, it actually "defuses" such a "bitchy" situation by
making a little joke out of it...or, at least, it _WOULD_ do so, _IF_ you
had the "cultural reference point" by which to comprehend what the hell I
was talking about...which, unfortunately, you don't...so, well, that was a
total disasterous attempt to "defuse the tension"...probably making it
worse...yet again, we misread each other and a "fight" ensues...actually,
"neutral third parties" must be reading this and finding it all quite
hilarious that this keeps happening here...

I guess you have as much "clue" what I was referring to, as I have knowing
who "Lady Bracknell" is...namely, none whatsoever...

> Also note that, despite what you say below, you were addressing
> me in the second person here.

No, no...another misunderstanding...here's the table:

Singular Plural
First I We
Second you you
Third he / she / it they

You'll note that "you" features in both the second person singular and
second person plural...unfortunately, the English language itself is
"flawed" by this...indeed, one "work around" is the use of "y'all" as
"second person plural"...and, had I used that, then, yes, I would have said
"y'all should re-read your physics textbooks"...

I was NOT, NOT, NOT referring to you personally...

The problem here is that:

1. You, at first, _ASSUME_ that I was "insulting" you...

2. Even when, if you continue to read, you see that I, in fact, _ALSO_ say
"you cannot exceed the speed of light", the fact that this _CORRESPONDS_
with your assertion is ignored...you've already "pre-determined" in (1)
that I am "insulting you"...so, no amount of the rest of the post
_AGREEING_ with you is sufficient to convince you otherwise...

3. Even the _EXPLICITLY STATED_ - the words actually _USED_ plain and
clear - "T.M.'s on the money here" is still, unfortuantely, NOT enough for
you to get "clued in" that perhaps the "you" earlier was a "y'all" kind of
"you", in fact...

Or, in short, you made up your mind that I was "insulting you"...and then,
in your "hatred" of that, it blinded you to any and all possibility that I
might NOT have been doing so...

Please, whatever has gone on since, do this one little thing...if you have
that post available there, try re-reading it _WITHOUT_ an "assumption" that
I'm "attacking" you...try to read it in the spirit intended that I was
speaking to the _wider group_ and basically trying to say "T.M.'s right",
presenting a "mini-case" - reasons like "infinite energy" that can be
checked up to _confirm_ your correctness - as to why I was supporting what
you were saying (after all, it might be "nice" that I'm seconding and
supporting what you say but, to the wider audience, this does not mean I'm
any more "right" or "wrong" than they think you might be...you know, my
"qualification" is as equally "suspect" to others, as yours would be...I'm
NOT so arrogant as to believe that just having me "second" what you say is,
alone, some kind of "proof" that you were right)...

You've really shot yourself in the foot over this one, because of
"assumptions" that doesn't - what was that about "being civil" and "being
polite" you were saying? - even give me the simple "benefit of the doubt"
that I might not be "being evil" to you at all in the slightest...that I
might have been trying to support you in the little "debate" with snowman
about "the speed of light"...

Funny, really...you attacked me a hundred times harder for _AGREEING_ with
you, while snowman has nothing said, when he was completely saying the
opposite and _WAS_ disagreeing with you...you "punish" your
allies..."friendly fire"...

Well, to be honest, you're such "hard work", T.M., it doesn't seem worth
too much bother ramming this point home...but, consider, it was _ME_ who
wrote it and _I_ am _TELLING_ you that I wrote it completely
innocently...and, yet, you _STILL_ insist on telling me "you're wrong!" on
something no-one else in the entire world can be better qualified than me
to answer...it was _MY_ intention, no-one knows that intention better than
I can...yet, even here, you presume "Beth is wrong" and that you are
"right", no matter what...

This isn't actually "open to debate"...I'm _TELLING_ you that I was trying
to _SECOND_ you here...

But, okay, I've now stated that and if you _STILL_ refuse to believe it
then there's nothign I can do about that...I'll have to strike it up to
"experience" and probably just avoid talking to you when in the same thread
or something...

One last try: Would a "sorry" help in any way?

> >> Thank you for the elementary physics lecture. I see that
> >> with you to guide me through the mysteries of modern physics
> >> there was no point in taking all those graduate physics
> >> courses. (That is an example of irony, a form of sarcastic
> >> remark in which the real meaning is the opposite of the
> >> surface meaning.)
> >
> > Aww, diddums..."big authority man" is offended...
>
> I do find your condescending attitude offensive.

Well done...that, of course, is the entire point...

I find the equally condescending "high and mighty" tone - especially when,
simply, you were wrong here because I was NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT,
NOT, NOT, NOT addressing you when I said "re-read your physics
textbook"...it was "second person plural"...a generalised statement of
generic "textbook re-reading", not, in fact, addressed to anyone in
particular - grossly offensive...

And when someone is "uncivil" to me, then I'm equally "uncivil" in
return...

You were "offensive" in your condescending tone (when you had simply
_MISUNDERSTOOD_ the entire matter that you're "high and mighty"
I-did-a-course-so-there's-no-disagreeing-with-me was I would say "grossly
offensive", not merely simply "offensive")...

I returned in kind...nothing more than that...

I'm perfectly comfortable, you see, to take the conversation to any "level"
you may want it to go...if you want "tit for tat insults", then I'm just as
able in that context as any other...indeed, people are generally "lucky"
that I do have a generally "amiable personality" that I really don't take
it so seriously as to _REALLY_ dig in with those insults...because if you
think this is "offensive", you have no idea just how much "force" exists in
my full arsenal of weaponry...

This was completely "mild"...like the Aussies too, we Brits regularly
take-the-piss out of each other with far more strength than this...you're
"lucky", so to speak, as, knowing hutch is an Aussie, I'm aware that I
could get away with "you stupid wanker" or something with him and he'd
laugh it off, rather than "take great offence"...a shame you don't get the
"handbags" reference because the "prissiness" of it all, works exactly
here...

> You need to
> stop assuming, like an adolescent, that you are the only one in
> the world who knows anything.

Oh, priceless...absolutely fracking priceless...

Three words:
Pot...kettle...black...

Note: Just for "future reference", you have just called me an
"adolescent"...yet, you seem to think that if you "phrase it posh" with
"long words" like "ergregious" then, somehow, this "cancels out" the
"offensive" nature of the condescending tone it contains...

Look above:
> > Aww, diddums..."big authority man" is offended...
>
> I do find your condescending attitude offensive.

See? When I make "reference" to you "acting like a baby", you "find this
condescending attitude offensive"...

Yet, somehow, I'm supposed to take being called an "adolescent" in good
spirits and not find it "condescending" or "offensive"...because, what? You
"phrased it posh"? Because you used a "long word" or two and phrase it "as
if" being "civil" then this means what is basically _THE EXACT SAME
OFFENSIVE TACTIC_ of calling the other "child-like" is not to be taken as
"offensive" by me in return?

Complete double-standards...

You can insult me all you like but I may not even make a mild "retort" or
it "deeply offends you"...your "offence" is of "national importance", mine
doesn't even register on the scale? Yeah, right...and I'm supposed to be
endeared to ths infantile behaviour, how exactly?

On the complete contrary, I originally posted to _BACK YOU UP_...to "put my
money" on what I thought was the "winning horse"...of _DEFERRING_ to _YOU_
as the "Oracle of Delphi" on this matter...I was NOT thinking I was the
only one who knew anything about anything...I posted exactly to _SUPPORT
YOU_, as "knowing what he's talking about"...pointing to you as the
"knowledge party" in the snowman / you "debate" about "exceeding the speed
of light"...weighing in on your side 100%...saying "like the big man
said"...

And when you mentioned you "took a course", I did not challenge that but,
again, very explicitly said "I don't doubt you know..." and so
forth...again, yet more "like the man said"...which is hardly the approach
of someone who believes that others don't know anything would take, surely?
To post to actually say nothing other than 100%: "T.M. knows! Listen to
him!"...

> > I was, in fact, as I made perfectly clear _SECONDING_ what you
> > said...and specifically said "Sorry, T.M.'s on the money here"
> > to _BACK YOU UP_...
>
> Had you considered that I did not need backing up by you? Of
> course you hadn't.

Oh my gosh!

I'd always assumed the "aura of arrogance" you give off was "accidental"...

I sit corrected; You are so arrogant that I didn't believe someone could
really be knowingly so to this degree...

So, this is your own personal forum?

It is "irrelevent" whether other people agree or disagree with you...they
are "not permitted" by you to express their opinions to the forum?

Again, you claim that I have unjustified "persecution complex" but then you
issue statements like this? Now I'm "*** on your shoe"...I'm not permitted
to express an opinion at all by order of "authority", which is you and only
you, as "all-knowing god of everything"...

I'm "not good enough" to even express my opinion of agreement with you?

You talk about "condescending"...you talk about "uncivil"...yet look what
you're outrightly stating here...you're so "high and mighty" and I'm such
"***" that I'm not even permitted to express agreement with you, in "your"
personal thread in "your" personal newsgroup...

Why was I even bothering to "somke the pipe of peace" with you at all? This
makes it perfectly clear...you will not "condone" for "***" like me to
even express my opinion of _AGREEING_ with you (frack's sake, it's not like
I ever even said you were "wrong" or opposed what you said at all) on what
you deem is "your" thread and "your" forum...

This explains it...you feel "offended" by me posting here at all...

Well, you say "offended"...but the more observant will consider whether it
is in fact feeling "threatened", rather than "offended", that I post
here...

> > And as I referred to you in the _THIRD PERSON_ throughout the
> > posting,
>
> Except when you didn't.

No, that was a "second person plural", Mr.Paranoid...

Sorry...but don't blame me...this is an "ambiguity" in the English language
itself...

Well, if I'd realised you'd get "arsey" about it then, sure, I would have
"disambiguated" to make sure it was clear...I didn't expect - what with the
ENTIRE POST AGREEING WITH YOU, what with all other references BEING THIRD
PERSON and even an EXPLICIT "T.M.'s on the money here" as "clues" so
whoppingly big that anyone and everyong could work out the "context"
without an ounce of problem - you to be so "dense" as not to "disambiguate"
yourself the context of the "you", as second person _plural_...as in: "one
can", "people generally can"...German "man kann"...

Except, you see, there was _NO_ instance where I "didn't"...that is
completely a figment of your imagination entirely...

You took it solely and completely _UPON YOURSELF_ to "determine" - to
"presume" - that I was referring to you...and then misconstrued everything
in a "self-fulfilling prophecy" to make your "assumption" - your
"pre-determination" - true...

Let me check this for complete surity...

Yeah, just re-read...there is NO instance where I "didn't"...NOT ONE...

Please, review the post yourself...post up the point where I didn't refer
to you in third person...and, as noted, you might think that the first
paragraph was addressed to you BUT IT WAS NOT...

Oh dear, you've made a really, really "dumb mistake"...because you stupidly
presumed you were the "centre of the universe"...I hardly referred to you
at all...and solely in the context of saying "T.M.'s on the money here"...

Really, read it again...you screwed up...

Because of _YOUR_ "persecution complex", you "presumed" that you were
"centre of the universe"...my post was to the _FORUM_ in general (and a
touch to "snowman" but solely in the "T.M.'s on the money here, I'm afraid"
comment, which is the only part where, sorry, I even bother to register
your presence...so, sorry to "shatter the illusion" that you're the most
important thing in the universe)...

I repeat...and I wrote the post, so, really, I do know this as _FACT_ (and,
no, I don't claim to "know everything" but this is slightly different, as a
person generally knows their own "motivations" better than others)...I made
_NO SECOND PERSON REFERENCE TO YOU AT ALL_...not a single one...

You "presumed" I did and that's the long and the short of where your "high
and mighty condescending attitude" that you always take in your posts has
caught up with you...

Sorry...but, well, you silly wanker...meant in all the best ways, of
course...but, boy, what a "doozy"...there is NO second person singular
reference to you, T.M., in the entire post...if you saw one, then that,
basically, is the long and short of where _YOU_ totally screwed up...

> > ...why, indeed, you may the "foremost authority" on the matter
>
> Of course, that is your invention. I have never made such a
> claim. Just because I know more about physics than you do does
> not make me a "foremost authority"; you don't know enough to make
> that true.

Yet, in this very post, you make a statement of the effect that you are
"too good" for anyone else to even voice agreement with you?

The point of this comment, of course, is to emphasise you're continuous,
repeated "condescending tone" should anyone "dare" to even encroach on
"your" subject matter...the whole "high and mighty" act...

> > ...but as you didn't bother to _EXPLAIN_ anything -
>
> I assume that the person I responded to, who had mentioned
> tachyons, knew what they were. I also assume that everyone else
> either knew, didn't care, could look it up and get a better
> explanation than I would give, or could ask. Unlike you, I do
> not assume that everyone is waiting breathlessly for me to
> lecture them on topics I know little about (and you call *me* an
> egomaniac).

A divergence of opinion; I, in no way whatsoever believe that a single
person is "waiting breathlessly"...

Perhaps, as you only ever serve your own selfish interest, you've never
even tried to be helpful and useful to others (that didn't involve a "pay
off" of everyone "adoring" you for being "the all-knowing entity")...but I
can tell you, _CATEGORICALLY_, that I repeatedly receive thanks and
gratitude for the efforts I go to try to assist people...I have Emails -
and sometimes they appear on the group itself - of those who find my posts
and their very effortful attempts to make things clear for them...

Oh, I get it, I think...you see the forum here in a completely different
context to how I see it...and you've gotten yourself the "impression" that
I write my long posts to "show off"...

You clearly _AIN'T_ done anything but serve your own selfish
interests...again, I can tell you categorically that the _SHORTER_ you make
your post, the _BETTER_ you look...I am fully aware of this little "reverse
porportion" but don't care because that's never been my intention
ever..."vanity" noe "ego" ain't my deal...if it were, then, on the
contrary, if you write this much and do so frequently, it sets you up _FOR
A FALL_, not "improves your image" with others...

I'm quite conscious that the more I've written, the less people like
me...because the more "opinion" I voice - such as the hardly
"uncontravertial" political stuff - the more I'm going to step on someone's
sensibilities (I must have screwed up somewhere to get the hound Annie on
my tail for a number of years)...I can tell you categorically as someone
who _HAS_ written this volume that it does you NO FAVOURS...if you want to
"look good" then write single sentences...short ones...provide NO
"political opinion", provide NO "insight into your personality", provide NO
"information" whatsoever...

Because, logically enough, the more you produce, the more there is to
"disagree with" or even "take offence at"...who could ever "disagree" or
"take offence" at Alex's single-word "yep" responses?

Oh, no, no, no...trust me, the more you stick your neck, the more chance
someone'll come and chop it off...the more "successful" you are, the more
people think it's time you have your "come-uppance" and get ripped apart
(think, for instance, of how many people want to see Microsoft fall and
fail, just because Bill Gates is a very rich man...or how many people won't
be happy to see Whacko Jacko get a "not guilty on all charges"
verdict...indeed, you could already hear, on the coverage I was listening
to, lots of "oh, well...the jury had to let him off because the 'jury
instructions' were long and complicated" (both an implication that Jacko
shouldn't have been found "Not guilty" but - the other implication -
because the jury were so "stupid", they just let him off rather than having
to "think" over "complicated papers"...an implied "he was guilty but got
away with it because the jury are the general public and, thus, implicitly
too stupid to have seen the clear guilt I insist he had")...indeed, even
more so here with our world-reknowned "tabloids", there's nothing many
people Love more than to take anyone who's "too big for their boots" and
rip them apart as savagely as possible...the more "famous" you get, the
more people _HATE_ you with "envy" and would Love to see you "fall"...they
do NOT Love you any more)...

I've had a "hound" chasing me on the group for numerous years...everyone,
at one time or another, has had some "fun" poking at me...I do not "get an
easy ride" supporting Randy's HLA, for instance...if "popularity" meant
anything to me then taking such a generally "hated" position, as to defend
"the thing that everyone hates" would not be the smartest idea, yes?

Indeed, if you think writing this much and doing so frequently has done me
the slightest "favour" at all...then, please, by all means, feel free to
take over...indeed, yes, I do sometimes come across with a touch of
"persecution complex", maybe, at times...care to stop and think where that
would come from, if writing long posts somehow "made everyone Love you"? On
the contrary, it does THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE...the more I write, the more
genuine "persecution" I get for it...alongside that, I'm sure some of the
"persecution" I reckon I'm seeing isn't actually there...but it gives you
the idea of the volume to expect, if I'm picking up "false positives" this
often...and I'm NOT generally a "paranoid" person whatsoever (I try to
point out to everyone else that your burger and fries or your car is a
hundred times more "threatening" to you - in statistical odds - then any
"terrorist" ever will be)...

No, on the contrary, T.M., it's no "pleasure cruise"...I have once or twice
"threatened" to leave the group and was absolutely 100% deadly serious when
I said it...because I was, at the time, on the absolute "breaking point" of
putting up with yet another "snipe"...

I know, I know...don't think I don't appreciate things...you think you're
doing a "valuable service" in putting this "arrogant little madam" into her
place...that I "need" to have my every word "pedantically analysed" to
"reign this bitch in", so to speak...I see where you're coming from
there...

> > simply being "bowed to" and "believed inherently" for being
> > "superior" seems to satisfy your "ego", it seems
>
> You are being delusional again.

Really? Okay, whatever you say...you "know best", after all...

> > I _KNOW_ I'm not any "foremost authority" by any means...I
> > took no "courses" in the subject...it should NOT be me trying
> > to help the group's understanding because I'm not fully
> > qualified to do so
>
> Knowing that, why do you do it? You do no-one any favors by
> giving out wrong information, as you too frequently do when you
> talk about subjects you know little about.

It's called "conversation"...yeah, I know...I'm under the stupid
"delusional" impression that, you know, people here might give a *** about
the others on the group...that this isn't only about "information" but
_communication_...

> > ...it appears _YOU_ are, though...so, it's quite sad when
> > someone with your learning, wisdom and experience seems to
> > deem it "elitist members only club" when it comes to sharing
> > that learning...
>
> Coming from you, considering how you react whenever anyone dares
> point out your errors, that is a laugh.

Yeah, you pointed out an error here...and I accepted the error was
made...I've tried to "make peace" but you still refuse...implying that I'm
such "***" or something, I'm not even allowed to express my opinion
anywhere near you...oh, no...you don't need anyone to agree with you...you
object to the possibility of anyone "below" you even being allowed to
express agreement with you...

> > 1. I referred to you in the _THIRD PERSON_; If you don't know
> > what that means regards who the post was addressing, then may
> > I suggest a similar "course" in the English language to match
> > your clear understanding of physics...
>
> I suggest you need that course more than I do: 'you' is second
> person, not third.

Second person _singular_ OR _plural_...in this case, _PLURAL_...talking in
a "general context"...

And, screw you, if I want to tell you to re-read your fracking physics
textbook then I can...if you don't like it, then just don't do it...and if
I want to express my opinion of agreement with you, then I'm going to
bloody do it, with or without your "permission"...if you don't like, you
know where the "killfile" is...no need to make some "federal case" out of
the issue...

> > 2. I was _SECONDING_ what you said;
>
> Yet you started out telling me to re-read my physics books, and
> generally disagreeing. With support like that, who needs opposition?

I wasn't talking to you specifically...this is the entire "dumb mistake"
upon which you decided to launch "friendly fire", assassinate me with a
stubborn determination to "make me pay"...

> > I come in peace;
>
> No, you didn't. You came on aggressively, insultingly, and
> obnoxiously. If you doubt that, consider your own reaction when
> I parrotted your opening back to you.

If I reacted badly, then it's probably a touch of "shock" at trying to be
"civil" with you for once and posting in agreement...only to face your
"firing squad" because you can't read English properly...and "obsessed"
over one use of "you" (which was "y'all", not you personally) that made you
read an entire post of support for you, as an "attack"...

Even now, you refuse to accept this...you made your "pre-determination"
that I was "attacking" you and you are, in your own mind, "defending"
yourself...except that initial assessment was wrong...and now you persist,
refusing to even acknowledge the severely mistake you've made...

I _DID_ perfectly well "come in peace"...it's not my fracking fault that
you're so "paranoid" that you couldn't even see that...in a post which said
next to nothing about you personally (the only reference: "T.M.'s on the
money here")...just because a post hangs off yours doesn't necessarily mean
it's directed at you...

> > Oh, I give up...if I handed you a million dollars, you'd find
> > some way to be "offended" by it...whatever...you're determined
> > to "dislike" me
>
> *You* are the one who began the ad hominem remarks a long time
> ago. *You* are the one who gets offended and throws a hissy fit
> every time one of your egregious errors is pointed out.

Is that "second person singular" or "second person plural"?

Just so I know whether it's an "ad hominem" attack or not, you're making
there...

> > Eventually, you will learn...I will NOT give a single bit of
> > "respect"
>
> Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

Oh dear, I do Hope you ain't got delusions you're Clark Gable or something?
I don't think so...

> > Oh, no, wait...I get it...you don't want my "respect", just my
> > "obedience"
>
> Are you high? When have I ever given you an order? *You*
> ordered me to re-read my physics books;

NO, I FRACKING DIDN'T!

Don't you get it? No, I did NOT do that...I did NOT, NOT, NOT do that...

You have taken it upon yourself to misconstrue the entire post on the
strength of that gross misunderstanding of the opening line, that's launced
you on this insane "quest" to do something or another I'm not even sure why
you're doing this...

But I did NOT fracking tell you to "re-read your physics textbook"...that
was "you", as in "y'all"...it also was not a serious comment in that I did
not actually expect people to re-read physics textbooks literally...

If anything, it was addressing "snowman" because it was he who disagreed
with you about the "excedding lightspeed" thing...and I was posting, as I
say, to basically say (yes, in my own long-winded way): "no, sorry, T.M.'s
quite correct that you can't exceed the speed of light"...

Please, re-read the post...well, if you don't, others can to assess your
"analysis" of that posting...and read it in the context that it was NOT
"second person singular"...so was NOT addressing you in that opening
line...and, hence, _ALL_ references to you were "third person", as I
say...and that, if you read it in the correct context, you've simply
screwed up royally in interpreting my post and now flatly refuse to
acknowledge this fact...

> I merely suggested that
> you re-read yours. But I'm the one demanding obedience?

Yes, because as I NEVER demanded you re-read your physics textbook, then
you suggesting I should re-read mine is exactly "barking orders" at me...

> > ...well, sorry, screw you...it'll never happen...if you don't
> > want to be disappointed by that, set your sights at a civil,
> > reasonable and respectful target
>
> You certainly are civil, aren't you? You sound more like Betov
> all the time.

Yes, because I've attempted to "make peace" with you...and you still flatly
refuse to acknowledge that you misread my posting (saving face or
something...I don't know...your "motivations" are your own...but it's
bloody stupid whatever it is)...

And you basically "attacked! attacked! attacked!" me for doing
NOTHING...NOTHING to you whatsoever in that post...I posted to
_agree_...not to attack...

What I guess is happening here is that you're proud (rightly so) of this
"course" you've taken and that you know a fair bit about the subject...and
you _WRONGLY_ thought I was "challenging you" in the opening line with
"re-read the physics textbooks"...

While, on the contrary, I was NOT speaking to you there whatsoever...the
entire "gist" of my post was supposed to be: "If you think your textbook
differs from what T.M. says, then you should re-read it because it doesn't,
as T.M. is correct"...this, to be honest, was _PRAISE_ to your knowledge...

For which, you attack, insult, abuse, etc., etc. as "reward" for offering
you praise...

And when you come to say "hey, that's right!", only to have that person
turn around and try to savage you - call you "adolescent" and
"condescending" for this - then, yeah, sorry to say, this tends not to make
someone feel they want to be too "civil" to such a dickhead, who doesn't
even realise when someone's agreeing with them and taking their side...

Try this: Take my post but _IGNORE_ that opening line...it was NOT
referring to you...then, in the _ACTUAL CONTENT_, do you see any "attack"
at all? In fact, bar one reference to say "T.M.'s right", do you even see a
reference to your person whatsoever in it? Now, restore the opening line
and read "you" in the "y'all" context...as a general (not completely
serious) statement that was NOT, NOT, NOT referring to you...

Once you've done all this...and realised your _MISTAKE_ in attacking
me...then you can come back and admit that the "photons have zero rest
mass" point was IN A DIFFERENT BRANCH OF THIS THREAD (in response to NoDot)
and was NOT, NOT, NOT in the original post I made (another "convenient"
thing: The "error" you cite is NOT in the post we're talking about but a
completely different one...hmmm, is that "selective memory" or
something?)...

> > ...and, sorry, this is, in part, your own fault as the fact
> > that I do not have any such problems or conflicts with others
> > on the group demonstrates
>
> Sorry, but I have seen you fly off the handle when others have
> pointed out your errors.

Like, when exactly?

Like when Wannabee also accussed me of being "wrong, wrong, wrong" but was,
in fact, mistaken, as he also didn't read my post properly and didn't
understand my point that was perfectly correct...

[ Note: The "photon has no mass" out of this was a response elsewhere to a
different post and a different branch of this thread...so, that error -
which, yes, I _IMMEDIATELY_ admitted without hesitation, without delay,
without protest, was an error and that you were absolutely 100% correct (I
did not dispute in the slightest) to say that it was "no rest mass", not
"no mass" - has NOTHING to do with the original posting I made in agreement
with you...it came _AFTER_ so you can't keep bringing up this "error"
(which I _ADMITTED_ without hesitation or questioning of your knowledge in
the matter whatsoever) as being the "error you were correcting" because it
was NOT in that post and NOT on that "branch" of the thread... ]

> What makes me different from them is
> that I am stupid enough to keep coming back for more.

Yeah, why is that? Perhaps you shouldn't...that would please everyone, I'm
sure...

> > ...you are "offended" by me being "unreasonable"...guess what?
> > I'm doing nothing more than paying you back in kind...you'd
> > stop being "offended", you know, the second you stop posting
> > to do nothing but "offend" me
>
> In other words, you will stop the unprovoked personal attacks on
> me when I stop pointing out your errors.

The "error" that you refer to about "photons have no mass" did NOT occur in
the post you are referencing but a separate "branch" that came off it with
NoDot and "sci-fi"...

The only "error" that's been pointed out in the "main branch" is that you
didn't read my post correctly and _ATTACKED ME WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE OR
REASON_...

It was _YOU_ who assaulted me over that post, when there was NOTHING in it
to "attack" you in any context...

You just "presumed" there was and attacked...you were wrong...you attacked
an _INNOCENT_ party...all that has happened since has just been me getting,
yes, slightly "pissed off" at that gross injustice and, yeah, not being too
"civil" to the idiot who starting attacking for no other reason but that he
can't read posts properly...

> You seem to be
> admitting that the ad hominem comments you keep making about me
> are designed to silence me.

No, not at all...I was saying that I was "paying you back in kind"...that
is what I specifically said above that I was doing...

Hence, the only way that me "paying you back in kind" could be "silencing
you" is if you were trying to silence me in the first place...as it is only
what you have done to me that I return to you...

> How's this for an idea? Next time you get an urge to post, check
> your facts before hitting the send button. Better yet, don't
> post unless it is on a topic you know well.

How's this for an idea? Next time you get the urge to attack someone, check
that there's actually justification to do so...don't read one line, "take
offence" at it because you read it incorrectly and then cease to bother to
read the rest _PROPERLY_ to realise the mistake you'd made...

Anyway, let us check here...time to have a "vote" on the group:

Who, other than T.M., reckons - a few errors accepted - that I appear not
to basically know what I'm talking about on this subject in general?

That is, other than T.M., who wants to volunteer that they would have known
enough to have even detected my "error" that T.M. did?

Or, in other words, this is a "biased metric"..._YOU_ do, indeed, know a
lot on this subject...more than I do...BUT does this hold true for the rest
of the group?

Am I only "ignorant" in your eyes because you are so very knowledgeable?

You see how that works? Well, you should...it's called
"relativity"...depends on your "frame of reference"...you are more of an
"expert" here than probably anyone else (or, at least, anyone else who's
volunteered to join the thread)...your "frame of reference", therefore, is
that everyone, bar you, is "a complete idiot" on this subject matter...but
this NOT the general "frame of reference" the majority of the group has...

Come on, how much did I write? And you found one "error" in saying "no
mass"? This isn't a great "case" you're presenting...

Especially when, if you like, I made up for that "error" by pointing out to
you where _YOUR_ "ignorance" lies because you seem to have had NO IDEA -
and I am surprised at that because it was well-publicised - that there been
a suspected _change_ in "the speed of light" over time...

Seems "tit for tat", surely? You point out my little "error", while I
pointed out an area of your "ignorance"...I was happy to accept the "error"
you pointed out and, yes, then corrected the mistake in agreeing with you
that I was wrong to say "no mass"...you have NOT done the same in kind,
despite, as you _ORDERED_ me to do (see? You did do it), to provide
"citations, please" regards the "speed of light change"...of which, I gave
you a fair selection of links that turned up on Google about it (what was
that about "checking your facts before posting"? I gave you enough
information - that it was an article in the March edition of the UK "New
Scientist" and the name of the article and that it was even "number 12" in
a list of 13 things - that you could have easily, just as I did when you
asked, found the _EXACT_, _SPECIFIC_ article I was referring to...you seem
to want me to "conform" to standards that you yourself DO NOT KEEP)...

> >>> Anyway, the "revelation" about Einstein's work - from an
> >>> "overall" and "scientific" point of view - is actually
> >>> more to do with him starting the whole "grand unified
> >>> theory" stuff
> >>
> >> Sorry, but Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism before
> >> Einstein was born.
> >
> > Yes, a good point; But then, in a certain sense, Newton
> > "unified" the motion of the planets with the falling of
> > objects on the surface of the Earth, by proposing "gravity"
> > that applied to Earth as much as the Heavens...
>
> Yes, he did.
>
> > Obviously, I was talking about specifically the notion of
> > "grand unification"...not just any old "unification"...
>
> 'Unification', 'grand unification', it's all the same general
> idea.

Well, you may think so...I don't and consider "unification" a general
process..."grand unification" is a name for the specific instance of that
process...

Note, this is a more than well-established context because, of course, I
called my _ASSEMBLER SYNTAX_ "the unified model"...and refer to it as
"unification"...hence, the fact that I saw "unification" as a general
process (that could be applied to assembler syntax or I've also referred to
UNIX's "everything's a file" as "unification" in the past numerous times
too)...so, you can't really say I'm "changing definitions"...NOT AT
ALL...this is the repeated consistent definition and context I've used for
what must be a year or so now...

You might think of these as "the same" because your "physics frame of
reference" makes you only see "grand unification"...kind of like a
biologist not seeing "genetic algorithms" as "evolution" because they have
allows seen "evolution" and "biological evolution" as the same thing...they
are NOT, of course..."evolution" is the general process, "biological
evolution" is qualified by an adjective to point out "evolution" in a
specific context...similarly, "unification" is a process (you'll find it
has a "Plain English" meaning listed in the dictionary)...while "grand
unification" is the name for specifically this type of "unification"...

> The term 'grand unification' did not come into use until
> almost 20 years after Einstein's death, and refers specifically
> to the unification of the strong force with the electroweak force.

Yeah, but we are now - at this present moment - more than 20 years after
Einstein's death...hence, the term is in common usage...hence, I was using
it...

In fact, 20 years after Einstein's death more or less corresponds with when
I was born...hence, it's been a valid term for probably all of my
life...why would I strangely start using terminology from 20 years prior to
being born?

This is a very weird point you're making here...as I don't fully understand
what relevence Einstein's death has on the matter of what terms we use
_NOW_ to describe these things, I must assume there's something here I
don't "get" about your point...and will reserve further comment...but, as I
say, to point out that what people might or might not have said 20 years
before I was even born and some 50 or so years before our current
conversation here, where a particular term was used, doesn't seem to have
much bearing on anything here, does it?

I mean, 2000 years before Einstein's death, people didn't even speak
English...is the argument that we should refrain from using "new terms" or
something to refer to things? Note, at no point did I say Einstein himself
called it "grand unification" or anything...

> > What is your major problem with me, T.M.? And I mean the _REAL
> > REASON_, not such "excuse" masquerading...because this is
> > clearly "personal" in the way you attack...if only "concerned
> > for technical accuracy" then you'd "correct" without the
> > "personal attack" involved
>
> I used to do that, but you kept responding with personal attacks
> on me. Eventually I got tired of those attacks, and decided not
> to make any effort to be civil in return.

Including in this thread, were I was not attacking you in any way, but you
launched into "attack" regardless...I was perfectly being "civil" to you in
that post...yeah, you have given up all effort to be "civil"...you won't
even do it when there is no call for "attack" whatsoever in what I've
said...you just launch into the unprovoked attack and then, maybe, later
on, you might just check if it was justified or not...

Yes, nice to see you admitting that your current attack was effectively
100% "unprovoked" and you just launched into it regardless...despite me
having made perfect effort to be "civil" to you and was even, if you like,
making a "peace offering" by backing up your points in the thread, to show
that I held no animosity toward you whatsoever...

> >>> You'll note that once all the physicists agreed that light
> >>> was a constant, they measure it and, oh dear, it appears
> >>> it's not as "constant" as first imagined...and it's
> >>> changed over time
> >>
> >> Citation, please.
> >
> > I thought I'd given it, in fact...I did mention an article in
> > "New Scientist", 19th March 2005 about "13 things that don't
> > make sense", which included "not-so-constant constants"...
>
> That article, which I looked at before replying, talks about the
> fine structure constant, not the speed of light per se. It
> certainly does not claim that anyone measured a different speed
> of light from normal, which is what you claimed.

You are now being blatantly dishonest...I'll demonstrate how as we
proceed...

Yes, it refers to the "fine structure constant" in the article...the speed
of light, c, of course, does actually appear in the fine structure constant
equation...but this is not the specific instance of "intellectual
dishonesty" I want to pick up...

> > The article also cites "Physical Review D, volume 69,
> > P.121701" regards Los Alamos National Laboratory measuring a 4
> > per cent decrease in Alpha since Oklo in Gabon (a natural
> > nuclear reactor, active 2 billion years ago), which is also
> > equally registering a similar "change in Alpha" that Webb's
> > team measured...
>
> See: the fine structure constant, not c.
>
> > Using "John Webb" and "speed of light" in Google, I found the
> > following:
>
> I'll take a look at them.

You'll take a look at them? In the future? After this thead is long dead?

Would you be delaying this because the reference given _DO_ refer to "a
change in the speed of light"?

You say you checked the "New Scientist" article before posting...yet, for
these references, we're to believe you violated your own "good practice"
and have not checked them out before posting this time?

Intellectual dishonesty...pure, plain and simple...these other references
do mention "a change in the speed of light" (or a probable possibility of
such) and you are simply pretending you have not checked them because then
you can "avoid" having to address this...

The very opening of my first link "on the constancy of the speed of light"
begins thusly:

"ON THE CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT

Summary: Is the velocity of light a fixed constant of nature, invariant
over time? This page presents the available measurements of c and several
statistical studies which suggest that c has decreased in the past 300
years. What other "constants" of physics might prove to be non-fixed? How
would a non-constant c affect physical laws? Possible consequences for
cosmology and the age of the universe. Responses and comments are
solicited."

[ <http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml> ]

This was the first link I gave you...it very specifically says: "This page
presents the available measurements of c and several statistical studies
which suggest that c has decreased in the past 300 years"...

It says "c"...it's very name is "on the constancy of the speed of light"...

You checked the other article before posting...and advised that "check your
facts before hitting send" to me...there's no way, therefore, that you'd be
hypocritical and contradict your own advice...

Hence, the fact that you are delibrately ignoring the links I gave you,
which do very much refer to "c", the speed of light, very much directly and
explicitly...to "play games" because the "New Scientist" article is more
"generic" and talks of the "fine structure constant" (which does interact
with light)...

Either you've been hypocritical and have not taken your own advice that you
gave to me to "check before posting"...or you _DID_ check these links,
found that they did not show what you'd Hoped...and, hence, tried to "brush
it aside" by saying "oh, I'll look at the links later on"...

Intellectual dishonesty from "Mr.Technical Accuracy"...intellectual
dishonesty from "Mr.I just point out the errors"...

The lie is exposed: You're just doing it for your "ego" or something...not,
as you claim, for "accurate truth" because when that didn't correspond with
what you wanted to hear, you have delibrately "skipped over" the "facts"
that you do not like or find "uncomfortable"...

There is no point continuing...as you're not interested in genuine debate,
where I cannot trust a single word you now say, as you've tried to "pull a
fast one" here...

Beth :)



.