User talk:Tmtoulouse/Archive3

pwned by Bohdan

The changes you describe as an improvment
Sorry, but most of it is nonesense. Heart ♥  Gold tx 22:21, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

I think the article is some what nonsensical, my recommendation is move it to essay, other wise its open to be edited by the community at large. 22:22, 13 July 2007 (CDT)


 * I don't mind others helping out, but the changes you described as an improvment seemed to undermind the article. Heart  ♥  Gold tx 22:34, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Trying something new: collaborative essay.   Check it out:  Essay:An example of how liberals work against mankind.  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 22:44, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Record?
I think we are having a conversation on 3 pages! Is that a record? Bohdan 23:45, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh come on we are both men of the internet....you want record lets add forum postings, e-mail, instant messaging from 3 different services and..oh yea unblock me on CP and we can talk there too. That would be a record. 23:47, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
 * You want to be unblocked? talk to whoever blocked you. Bohdan 23:47, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
 * That would be you. 23:49, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I thought I blocked your SOCK, not you you. Bohdan 23:49, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Well me me is persona non grata at CP. I am, you know, the devil incarnate that helped lead my people out of CP...we are still wandering the desert but will eventually find someplace to settle down. Now my SOCK he could still be useful.... 23:51, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm afraid you lost me. I never went to McMaster University. Bohdan 23:54, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Its okay nothing I say means much anyway. 23:55, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
 * That was so profound. Bohdan 23:57, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
 * You have earned my respect. Bohdan 00:03, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the double link tip
Just got to it, works fine. 14:58, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

You bastard
You archived my whine section!

Um I forgot (NaCl)
Why I clicked your talk page! OH, wait... it was "Fibonacci, block unit, and deleting and salting" marked "completed". Where is my "salt" button? Or alternatively, how does it work? human be in 20:46, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Poison Pill?
Do you have a poison pill in case the mob becomes conservative? E.g., if a bunch of conservative members joined? (Hypothetical, I doubt this would ever happen). 23:46, 14 July 2007 (CDT)


 * OMGZ! Well, if it happens, so cool it... human be in 01:30, 15 July 2007 (CDT)


 * What does OMGZ mean. Tmtoulouse, thanks for cleaning up behind me by deleting the redirect pages.   00:09, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

No problem--OMG=Oh My God so OMGZ=Oh My Godz? as far as the poison pill....no I have a red button that will take me and all the conservatives with me......oh wait never mind. 00:11, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks
My wife is due very soon and I've been pretty focussed on work recently. I miss working on some of this, but then I read TK's rants and.... well, you know. Anyway, I'll try to check in now and then. I have been reading some, just not much time to edit.  ʄĹїþþїɲ ;-) 14:27, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Very generous
The problem was you guys didn't settle on your terms before you began. HG decided to define falling "faster" as a decrease in the time it takes the two object to collide with each other. Everyone else was defining "falling" as the speed in which the "heavier" object versus "lighter" object would move towards a reference. These are subtle but different enough definitions that you were both arguing what was correct but arguing past each other. And all of the stems from the B4B reference, which prima facie, and not being pendantic, was a stupid thing for them to say

Tmtoulouse, the above was so generous that I would describe it as inaccurate. I initially wrote:

"Heavier objects DO fall faster" This is true. Do the math. Use the Earth, and a cue ball with the mass of the sun dropped from 10 feet. The cue ball falls toward the earth, but the earth falls toward the cue ball much more quickly. The overal acceleration, at=ae+ac is greater. For a normally massed cue ball, ae, the acceleration of the Earth due to the cue ball, is astronomically negligable.

I defined everything necessary for a real physics person who has studied Newtonian physics to recognize what I was saying. The biggest critique I have is I did not go into detail about the sloppy use of "Heavier", and the use of "astronomically" to modify negligable.

I assume that what happened is that other posters were so eager to discredit me that they did not bother to recognize the oft repeated simplification (verified in the lab using the Earth as the frame of reference, and using the time to impact as the measure of "faster", as my experiment requires) to realize that what I was saying was in fact 100% correct, and consistent with both Newtonian and Relativisitic models of gravitation.

Later, when I posted the equations (which were correct) and the plots (also correct), others still argued with me. This illustrated their own closed minds. The truth was right there all along, but they were convinced that their version of reality (based on an oft repeated simplification) trumped the proof staring them in the face.

In any event, not sure why you stepped in. I have received two unequivical apologies on the matter (which I appreciated). Your comments may have prevented a third (and most important)...that of Elk Murderer or whatever (unless he was a sock of one of the two who already apologized). 23:09, 18 July 2007 (CDT)


 * This is an example of why amorphous terms such as "falling" are avoided like the plague, in real situations where scientist are communicating you first have to make sure that everyone is using the same concepts for the words being said. Falling has too much potential for confusion. Again, I think everyone was basically right, but the semantics got in the way of being able to see that. When a disagreement arises the first thing that should be checked is the terminology and the definitions. Everyone failed to do that because the desire to be "right" was too strong with everyone involved. I merely pointed out where the definitional difference lay from my perspective. 24.141.169.255 23:16, 18 July 2007 (CDT)


 * I have to disagree. It was not a semantical isssue on the word falling, it was a pride issue on the part of EM aka DA.  Falling is the exact word used (even in intorductory physics class, where the teacher often mentions the (mistaken) belief of the Greeks regarding heavier objects, before demonstrating that their science was not empirical).  Time to fall is also used as a synonym for collide with the Earth (or floor, or whatever).  What kind of discussion can we have if we first have to discuss what the meaning of the word is is, ala Bill Clinton.  (You'll note, too, that I predicted that the semantical card would eventually be played.)  Anyway, we can agree to disagree.   23:23, 18 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Anyway, we can agree to disagree.
 * You must be new to this whole "Internet" thing. :) Any long-term resident could tell you that this is utterly impossible, and the ONLY course of action is to argue for the rest of eternity, or until one of you admits they are wrong, at which point the winner is crowned Ubergeek Of All Cosmos. --Gulik 23:28, 18 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Science starts with the definitions, a flippant attitude about agreeing on what you mean by what you say is how confusion works. Science becomes meaningless without accurate, precise and agreed upon definitions of words. While "falling" may eventually end in collision the phrase "the speed in which an object falls" becomes somewhat blurry. I would say that pride was involved in all sides of the argument, and it would be important for you to realize that. I noticed Human apologized for not understanding what you meant and making an error. You didn't really ever apologize for your massive and unjustified ad hominom attack against him. I merely provide an opportunity for all involved to reflect on what role they played in the issue. 24.141.169.255 23:29, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

why?
Why must you do this? talkResident vandalcomplain here 13:08, 19 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Displaced aggression? 13:09, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Did you just lock it? talkResident vandalcomplain here 13:20, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I will fight you until the end of time. Resident vandal
 * Tick, tock, tick, tock... human be in 00:40, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Restore my sysop powers (PLEASE)
Not that it is your fault, but that was pretty lame (you didn't do it). I'll come back and participate more. Never abused my sysop powers here, and my intellectual participation, though widely pooo-pooed and misunderstood, should not have influenced desysopshiping me. Besides, I'd like to write an essay comparing the abuses at CP to similar abuses at WP. Think of my hissy fits as an evolutionary learning process. Thanks. 15:14, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I have to admit, you never did abuse your super powers...you did distract us from "legitimate" work, but that's our fault. If I think you are writing bs, I should just ignore it...and that advice goes to others as well. User:PalMD
 * Thanks for your support?, PalMD. Umn, anyway, I am going to change the title of my essay to the Pernicious Human (not RW user) Swarm, as my first intentional act as sysop.   15:42, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
 * You don't have to be a sysop to rename an article. Just to delete the redirect left in its wake.  Since it was I who altered your user status, I will try to stay out of any discussion about restoring the sysop thing.  Unless someone asks me a direct question. human be in 15:57, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Direct question: Why don't you just undo your alteration of my status?   16:02, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Because I haven't changed my mind. From the users I see potentially supporting the change, you won't need me to do it.  Or, if the "mob" decides, they can ask me to do it for "symmetry". human be in 16:52, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Could you remind me again HG. Why do you need to be sysop? You don't need to be a sysop to write the essay you talk about above.--Bob_M (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't remember why you were made a sysop in the first place, Heart. Do you have a burning desire to do wiki housekeeping? --Kels 16:21, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
 * (edit conflict) He should be reinstated, there was no need to make him a sysop in the first place but once that was done there was no reason to de sysop. - Icewedge 16:27, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I do agree that the de-sysoping wasn't the right thing to do, but I'm not certain the sysoping in the first place was right either. --Kels 16:30, 27 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Sure, I did (and will do) housekeeping.  16:25, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm just a little bothered by the fact that you seem to see that as an afterthought, when in fact it's the point of the position. --Kels 16:29, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
 * It wasn't an afterthought, it was a response to your question. But, I agree with Icewedge on the part about there was no reason to de sysop.   16:31, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Response
I see no reason why a person who does not share RW's reasons to exist should be a sysop. -- Humans summary of sysop reduction action.

I am all for rational thought and intellectually honest debunking. 16:52, 27 July 2007 (CDT)


 * 1) Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas and people.
 * 2) Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas.
 * 3) Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.


 * I am far from anti-science. I support science.  Many of my ideas are considered crank ideas.  I certainly support analyizing them (though refuting only the ones that are actually crank ideas).  Fully support Number 3.   16:55, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I would love to see you steer away from your "conspiracy theories", but it's a free country. Like I said before, if the community spends its time refuting you instead of writing articles, it's their choice, but i hope that folks stay productive.  --PalMD-Goatspeed! 18:50, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Referring to HOG's sysopship.
While I hate to be having this discussion in more than one place (here and tmt's talk, at least), I just checked and there are only six of us who can change user powerz - airdish, Colin, me, Jtl, Linus, and Tmtoulouse. None of whom I have seen around in the last day or two, so I guess I'm it. I'll go revise the demotion now; you never know, we might need you to help if the wandals crash the gates this weekend! Thanks, human be in 22:36, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Welcome back...
...to the real world.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 14:17, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
 * You have no idea how good it is to return to this here reality....that trip as hell...complete hell. I am never leaving my little corner of Canada again...well thats not true...but still. 14:20, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
 * All I can say is Utah. You shoulda' known ;-). Welcome back Tmtoulouse - now you're back, you can fix all the carnage we've caused in your absence. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
 * Hey, not all of us are raving, lunatic, brainwashed, cultists mormons, some of us are atheist/agnostic and therefore sane. However they do unfortunately control everything, it's like separation of church and state doesn't exist.....  but sorry about devolving into a rant about this hellhole of a state. Locke Random 15:25, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Wasnt just the Mormons, though they are always a "treat" my friend that I was visiting decided to go ape shit on me at the half way point. If only she could have saved it for like the last day....24.141.169.255 15:36, 1 August 2007 (CDT)


 * They are not Christian.  No no, not at all.   They are MAD heathens with crazy beliefs.   In Christ.   Doggedpersistance  15:50, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, welcome back. Sorry you didn't have big funz in UT! human be in 15:57, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Seen this yet?
Woo didn't disappear while you were away. If you have a chance, drop by my blog, too...im trying to cross pollinate RW and the blog...link to each other, cover similar themes, etc.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 18:23, 2 August 2007 (CDT)