 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » open letter to the Google company, on the value of the... |
|
Page 1 of 44 Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 42, 43, 44 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Franz Gnaedinger... |
 Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Google company,
thank you very much for archiving the discussions
in the scientific groups. Let me say a word on
their value.
Solving problems, I find, is a matter of matching
complexities. If you can get an idea of the
complexity of a problem you can look out for
a matching pattern among potential solutions.
Now the scientific groups were a fantastic means
of getting an idea of the complexity of a problem
- as long as all messages were retrievable.
Alas, more and more messages can't be found
any longer.
The value of your archives will increase with new
ideas published in the scientific groups. But will
people publish their new ideas if their messages
disappear? No, they will held back their ideas,
while ever more trivia and idle chatter will flood
your archives.
Am I right in assuming that you are installing
rating filters? and if so, do you think that such
filters could weed out nonsense and keep the
valuable messages?
Consider the case of two posters A and Z.
Poster A uses a scientific group for publishing
and discussing and further developing new ideas,.
Nobody can prove them wrong, and so he feels
entitled to go on with his work online. Yet poster Z
hates the presence of poster A, envies his wealth
in ideas, attacks him out of the blue, in the hope
to make himself a name by driving him away,
and starts a killrating campaign he leads with a
multitude of aliases, each one with an own Google
account, which allows him multiple rating and
killrating, also toprating own messages. He does
that for years, until the messages of poster A
are filtered out of the system. Would you consider
this the proper way of leading a scientific discussion?
All that counts are scientific arguments, better
arguments, neither ad hominems, nor verdicts
dropped from above, nor a killrating campaign.
Sincereley, Franz Gnaedinger |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dušan Vukotić... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 9, 7:42 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f... at (no spam) bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote:f9cb6db841]Dear Google company,
thank you very much for archiving the discussions
in the scientific groups. Let me say a word on
their value.
Solving problems, I find, is a matter of matching
complexities. If you can get an idea of the
complexity of a problem you can look out for
a matching pattern among potential solutions.
Now the scientific groups were a fantastic means
of getting an idea of the complexity of a problem
- as long as all messages were retrievable.
Alas, more and more messages can't be found
any longer.
The value of your archives will increase with new
ideas published in the scientific groups. But will
people publish their new ideas if their messages
disappear? No, they will held back their ideas,
while ever more trivia and idle chatter will flood
your archives.
Am I right in assuming that you are installing
rating filters? and if so, do you think that such
filters could weed out nonsense and keep the
valuable messages?
Consider the case of two posters A and Z.
Poster A uses a scientific group for publishing
and discussing and further developing new ideas,.
Nobody can prove them wrong, and so he feels
entitled to go on with his work online. Yet poster Z
hates the presence of poster A, envies his wealth
in ideas, attacks him out of the blue, in the hope
to make himself a name by driving him away,
and starts a killrating campaign he leads with a
multitude of aliases, each one with an own Google
account, which allows him multiple rating and
killrating, also toprating own messages. He does
that for years, until the messages of poster A
are filtered out of the system. Would you consider
this the proper way of leading a scientific discussion?
All that counts are scientific arguments, better
arguments, neither ad hominems, nor verdicts
dropped from above, nor a killrating campaign.
Sincereley, Franz Gnaedinger
[/quote:f9cb6db841]
I wouldn't say that anyone is filtering your messages, Franz. You can
retrieve them all through your Profile search in case that the Google
group search doesn't work.
DV |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dušan Vukotić... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 9, 12:53 pm, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:0ea693984e]On Sep 9, 7:42 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f... at (no spam) bluemail.ch> wrote:
Dear Google company,
thank you very much for archiving the discussions
in the scientific groups. Let me say a word on
their value.
Solving problems, I find, is a matter of matching
complexities. If you can get an idea of the
complexity of a problem you can look out for
a matching pattern among potential solutions.
Now the scientific groups were a fantastic means
of getting an idea of the complexity of a problem
- as long as all messages were retrievable.
Alas, more and more messages can't be found
any longer.
The value of your archives will increase with new
ideas published in the scientific groups. But will
people publish their new ideas if their messages
disappear? No, they will held back their ideas,
while ever more trivia and idle chatter will flood
your archives.
Am I right in assuming that you are installing
rating filters? and if so, do you think that such
filters could weed out nonsense and keep the
valuable messages?
Consider the case of two posters A and Z.
Poster A uses a scientific group for publishing
and discussing and further developing new ideas,.
Nobody can prove them wrong, and so he feels
entitled to go on with his work online. Yet poster Z
hates the presence of poster A, envies his wealth
in ideas, attacks him out of the blue, in the hope
to make himself a name by driving him away,
and starts a killrating campaign he leads with a
multitude of aliases, each one with an own Google
account, which allows him multiple rating and
killrating, also toprating own messages. He does
that for years, until the messages of poster A
are filtered out of the system. Would you consider
this the proper way of leading a scientific discussion?
All that counts are scientific arguments, better
arguments, neither ad hominems, nor verdicts
dropped from above, nor a killrating campaign.
Sincereley, Franz Gnaedinger
I wouldn't say that anyone is filtering your messages, Franz. You can
retrieve them all through your Profile search in case that the Google
group search doesn't work.
DV
[/quote:0ea693984e]
Actually, the truth is that the Group serch doesn't work properly, but
you can use the regular Google search engine instead, or the Profile
search as I suggested above.
DV
DV |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bulkington63... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 9, 12:42 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f... at (no spam) bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote:237e8bb668]Dear Google company,
thank you very much for archiving the discussions
in the scientific groups. Let me say a word on
their value.
Solving problems, I find, is a matter of matching
complexities. If you can get an idea of the
complexity of a problem you can look out for
a matching pattern among potential solutions.
Now the scientific groups were a fantastic means
of getting an idea of the complexity of a problem
- as long as all messages were retrievable.
Alas, more and more messages can't be found
any longer.
The value of your archives will increase with new
ideas published in the scientific groups. But will
people publish their new ideas if their messages
disappear? No, they will held back their ideas,
while ever more trivia and idle chatter will flood
your archives.
Am I right in assuming that you are installing
rating filters? and if so, do you think that such
filters could weed out nonsense and keep the
valuable messages?
Consider the case of two posters A and Z.
Poster A uses a scientific group for publishing
and discussing and further developing new ideas,.
Nobody can prove them wrong, and so he feels
entitled to go on with his work online. Yet poster Z
hates the presence of poster A, envies his wealth
in ideas, attacks him out of the blue, in the hope
to make himself a name by driving him away,
and starts a killrating campaign he leads with a
multitude of aliases, each one with an own Google
account, which allows him multiple rating and
killrating, also toprating own messages. He does
that for years, until the messages of poster A
are filtered out of the system. Would you consider
this the proper way of leading a scientific discussion?
All that counts are scientific arguments, better
arguments, neither ad hominems, nor verdicts
dropped from above, nor a killrating campaign.
Sincereley, Franz Gnaedinger
[/quote:237e8bb668]
This has nothing to do with sci.lang. Quit posting your trash here. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 9, 1:42 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f... at (no spam) bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote:e71d03031c]Consider the case of two posters A and Z.
Poster A uses a scientific group for publishing
and discussing and further developing new ideas,.
Nobody can prove them wrong,
[/quote:e71d03031c]
Finally! You admit you are not "doing science"! Therefore you should
stop posting your stuff in a "sci.*" group.
(Oh, and "publish" is another word whose meaning you do not
understand.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Franz Gnaedinger... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 9, 12:53 pm, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:4ce155deeb]On Sep 9, 7:42 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f... at (no spam) bluemail.ch> wrote:
Dear Google company,
thank you very much for archiving the discussions
in the scientific groups. Let me say a word on
their value.
Solving problems, I find, is a matter of matching
complexities. If you can get an idea of the
complexity of a problem you can look out for
a matching pattern among potential solutions.
Now the scientific groups were a fantastic means
of getting an idea of the complexity of a problem
- as long as all messages were retrievable.
Alas, more and more messages can't be found
any longer.
The value of your archives will increase with new
ideas published in the scientific groups. But will
people publish their new ideas if their messages
disappear? No, they will held back their ideas,
while ever more trivia and idle chatter will flood
your archives.
Am I right in assuming that you are installing
rating filters? and if so, do you think that such
filters could weed out nonsense and keep the
valuable messages?
Consider the case of two posters A and Z.
Poster A uses a scientific group for publishing
and discussing and further developing new ideas,.
Nobody can prove them wrong, and so he feels
entitled to go on with his work online. Yet poster Z
hates the presence of poster A, envies his wealth
in ideas, attacks him out of the blue, in the hope
to make himself a name by driving him away,
and starts a killrating campaign he leads with a
multitude of aliases, each one with an own Google
account, which allows him multiple rating and
killrating, also toprating own messages. He does
that for years, until the messages of poster A
are filtered out of the system. Would you consider
this the proper way of leading a scientific discussion?
All that counts are scientific arguments, better
arguments, neither ad hominems, nor verdicts
dropped from above, nor a killrating campaign.
Sincereley, Franz Gnaedinger
I wouldn't say that anyone is filtering your messages, Franz. You can
retrieve them all through your Profile search in case that the Google
group search doesn't work.
DV
[/quote:4ce155deeb]
Okay. I looked up your profile, you posted 167
messages in June 207, I clicked on them and
got 6 results, means that 161 of your messages
you wrote in June 2007 can't be retrieved.
The first point of my open letter has not been
commented upon by anyone, and the second
point is that nobody will publish new ideas
in here if the messages can't be retrieved
anymore. The Harlan Messingers and
Peter T. Danielses etc. won't complain,
they don't publish any new ideas in here,
they wouldn't even publish one if they
had one, the Usenet not being prestigious
enough for them. But why does Google
maintain the expensive labor of maintaining
the archives if there are only trivia and idle
chatting and tera-bytes of nothing to be
found in the nets they cast? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PaulJK... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
[quote:21fd2933a4]Dear Google company,
[...]
Sincereley, Franz Gnaedinger
[/quote:21fd2933a4]
Gooood boooy, have a cookie.
pjk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Franz Gnaedinger... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 9, 2:47 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
[quote:63ea875cc9]
You are extremely dishonest. Once again you pretend that the inability
of anyone to prove you wrong gives weight to anything you assert, yet
you have not once embraced my similarly undisprovable claims about what
Marie Antoinette ate at certain meals during her life.
[/quote:63ea875cc9]
I told you that my sweeping reconstruction
of the Ice Age mind, coherent all over, rich in
surprising detail, based on my new approach
to early language, embedded in my studies
of visual language, can't be compared to
one single pseudo-historical mini-factoid
of absolutely no interest (Marie Antoinette
eating quail on the third evening before her
seventeenth birthday - the first unprovable
and in-disprovable 'theorem' you presented). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Panu... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 9, 4:27 pm, Franz Gnaedinger <f... at (no spam) bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote:d84e4f7b55]On Sep 9, 2:47 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
You are extremely dishonest. Once again you pretend that the inability
of anyone to prove you wrong gives weight to anything you assert, yet
you have not once embraced my similarly undisprovable claims about what
Marie Antoinette ate at certain meals during her life.
I told you that my sweeping reconstruction
of the Ice Age mind, coherent all over, rich in
surprising detail, based on my new approach
to early language, embedded in my studies
of visual language, can't be compared to
one single pseudo-historical mini-factoid
of absolutely no interest (Marie Antoinette
eating quail on the third evening before her
seventeenth birthday - the first unprovable
and in-disprovable 'theorem' you presented).
[/quote:d84e4f7b55]
Why couldn't the two things be comparable? An elaborate lie is no less
a lie than a trivial fib. An elaborate figment of imagination is still
just a fantasy, when it has no evidence to back it. A murder is still
a murder even though you'd arrange the victim's bowels in an
aesthetically pleasing way afterwards. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 9, 9:27 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f... at (no spam) bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote:72155d9612]On Sep 9, 2:47 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
You are extremely dishonest. Once again you pretend that the inability
of anyone to prove you wrong gives weight to anything you assert, yet
you have not once embraced my similarly undisprovable claims about what
Marie Antoinette ate at certain meals during her life.
I told you that my sweeping reconstruction
[/quote:72155d9612]
It is not a "reconstruction." It is a construction -- an imagination.
[quote:72155d9612]of the Ice Age mind, coherent all over, rich in
surprising detail, based on my new approach
to early language, embedded in my studies
of visual language, can't be compared to
one single pseudo-historical mini-factoid
of absolutely no interest (Marie Antoinette
eating quail on the third evening before her
seventeenth birthday - the first unprovable
and in-disprovable 'theorem' you presented).
[/quote:72155d9612]
If Harlan had as much imagination, and time, as you do, he could weave
an elaborate imaginary universe around the teenage Marie Antoinette.
Indeed, there are people who do that all the time, and make money at
it -- they are called historical novelists. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Harlan Messinger... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 6:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
[quote:1ef8cd5abe]Dear Google company,
thank you very much for archiving the discussions
in the scientific groups. Let me say a word on
their value.
Solving problems, I find, is a matter of matching
complexities. If you can get an idea of the
complexity of a problem you can look out for
a matching pattern among potential solutions.
Now the scientific groups were a fantastic means
of getting an idea of the complexity of a problem
- as long as all messages were retrievable.
Alas, more and more messages can't be found
any longer.
The value of your archives will increase with new
ideas published in the scientific groups. But will
people publish their new ideas if their messages
disappear? No, they will held back their ideas,
while ever more trivia and idle chatter will flood
your archives.
[/quote:1ef8cd5abe]
Posting to Usenet is not "publishing", and Google doesn't give a damn
what you post to Usenet or why you post it there. What in the WORLD
makes you think otherwise?
[quote:1ef8cd5abe]
Am I right in assuming that you are installing
rating filters?
[/quote:1ef8cd5abe]
What kind of a question is that? What do you mean, "you are installing"?
We've been hearing from you for years on the filters that they do have.
[quote:1ef8cd5abe]and if so, do you think that such
filters could weed out nonsense and keep the
valuable messages?
Consider the case of two posters A and Z.
Poster A uses a scientific group for publishing
and discussing and further developing new ideas,.
Nobody can prove them wrong, and so he feels
entitled to go on with his work online.
[/quote:1ef8cd5abe]
You are extremely dishonest. Once again you pretend that the inability
of anyone to prove you wrong gives weight to anything you assert, yet
you have not once embraced my similarly undisprovable claims about what
Marie Antoinette ate at certain meals during her life.
[quote:1ef8cd5abe]Yet poster Z
hates the presence of poster A, envies his wealth
in ideas, attacks him out of the blue, in the hope
to make himself a name by driving him away,
and starts a killrating campaign he leads with a
multitude of aliases, each one with an own Google
account, which allows him multiple rating and
killrating, also toprating own messages. He does
that for years, until the messages of poster A
are filtered out of the system. Would you consider
this the proper way of leading a scientific discussion?
[/quote:1ef8cd5abe]
Google Groups is not in the business of "leading a scientific
discussion" or caring about it. And if they did, they would come right
out and tell you that nothing about your "work" is scientific anyway, so
considerations of a fit environment for scientific discussion would be
irrelevant.
[quote:1ef8cd5abe]
All that counts are scientific arguments, better
arguments, neither ad hominems, nor verdicts
dropped from above, nor a killrating campaign.[/quote:1ef8cd5abe] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AntĂłnio Marques... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Franz Gnaedinger<f... at (no spam) bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote:c962bd9ff3]I told you that my sweeping reconstruction of the Ice Age mind,
[/quote:c962bd9ff3]
Yeah, what's so sweeping about it?
[quote:c962bd9ff3]coherent all over,
[/quote:c962bd9ff3]
In what way is it 'coherent'? Put otherwise, what's there in it that,
were it different, would make the whole any more incoherent?
[quote:c962bd9ff3]rich in surprising detail,
[/quote:c962bd9ff3]
What's rich or surprising about it?
[quote:c962bd9ff3]based on my new approach to early language, embedded in my studies of
visual language, can't be compared to one single pseudo-historical
mini-factoid of absolutely no interest (Marie Antoinette eating quail
on the third evening before her seventeenth birthday - the first
unprovable and in-disprovable 'theorem' you presented).
[/quote:c962bd9ff3]
Ok, so yours is a multitude of pseudo-historical mini-factoids of
absolutely no interest (every single language you come across being the
outcome of people in the 'Ice Age' mumbling permutations of
monosyllables). What's so great about it? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Harlan Messinger... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
[quote:35d1f5e30e]On Sep 9, 2:47 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
You are extremely dishonest. Once again you pretend that the inability
of anyone to prove you wrong gives weight to anything you assert, yet
you have not once embraced my similarly undisprovable claims about what
Marie Antoinette ate at certain meals during her life.
I told you that my sweeping reconstruction
of the Ice Age mind, coherent all over, rich in
surprising detail,
[/quote:35d1f5e30e]
"The Lord of the Rings" is "rich in surprising detail". Does that make
it real? (How can it be "surprising" detail given that you are perfectly
capable of making up fantasies that are as detailed as you want them to be?)
[quote:35d1f5e30e]based on my new approach
to early language, embedded in my studies
of visual language, can't be compared to
one single pseudo-historical mini-factoid
of absolutely no interest (Marie Antoinette
eating quail on the third evening before her
seventeenth birthday - the first unprovable
and in-disprovable 'theorem' you presented).
[/quote:35d1f5e30e]
A richly interwoven, "surprisingly detailed" web of stuff you made up
for the very purpose of meshing with other stuff you made up is still
just a bunch of unverifiable mini-factoids that you made up. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dušan Vukotić... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 9, 3:03 pm, Franz Gnaedinger <f... at (no spam) bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote:7eabb134e4]On Sep 9, 12:53 pm, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:42 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f... at (no spam) bluemail.ch> wrote:
Dear Google company,
thank you very much for archiving the discussions
in the scientific groups. Let me say a word on
their value.
Solving problems, I find, is a matter of matching
complexities. If you can get an idea of the
complexity of a problem you can look out for
a matching pattern among potential solutions.
Now the scientific groups were a fantastic means
of getting an idea of the complexity of a problem
- as long as all messages were retrievable.
Alas, more and more messages can't be found
any longer.
The value of your archives will increase with new
ideas published in the scientific groups. But will
people publish their new ideas if their messages
disappear? No, they will held back their ideas,
while ever more trivia and idle chatter will flood
your archives.
Am I right in assuming that you are installing
rating filters? and if so, do you think that such
filters could weed out nonsense and keep the
valuable messages?
Consider the case of two posters A and Z.
Poster A uses a scientific group for publishing
and discussing and further developing new ideas,.
Nobody can prove them wrong, and so he feels
entitled to go on with his work online. Yet poster Z
hates the presence of poster A, envies his wealth
in ideas, attacks him out of the blue, in the hope
to make himself a name by driving him away,
and starts a killrating campaign he leads with a
multitude of aliases, each one with an own Google
account, which allows him multiple rating and
killrating, also toprating own messages. He does
that for years, until the messages of poster A
are filtered out of the system. Would you consider
this the proper way of leading a scientific discussion?
All that counts are scientific arguments, better
arguments, neither ad hominems, nor verdicts
dropped from above, nor a killrating campaign.
Sincereley, Franz Gnaedinger
I wouldn't say that anyone is filtering your messages, Franz. You can
retrieve them all through your Profile search in case that the Google
group search doesn't work.
DV
Okay. I looked up your profile, you posted 167
messages in June 207, I clicked on them and
got 6 results, means that 161 of your messages
you wrote in June 2007 can't be retrieved.
The first point of my open letter has not been
commented upon by anyone, and the second
point is that nobody will publish new ideas
in here if the messages can't be retrieved
anymore. The Harlan Messingers and
Peter T. Danielses etc. won't complain,
they don't publish any new ideas in here,
they wouldn't even publish one if they
had one, the Usenet not being prestigious
enough for them. But why does Google
maintain the expensive labor of maintaining
the archives if there are only trivia and idle
chatting and tera-bytes of nothing to be
found in the nets they cast?
[/quote:7eabb134e4]
But that 6 results are 6 themes where all of my 167 messages are
posted. Of course, I have no intention to count them one by one, but,
at first sight, you can see that nothing is missing there.
DV |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Trond Engen... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
bulkington63:
[quote:7e35374f96]On Sep 9, 12:42 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f... at (no spam) bluemail.ch> wrote:
Dear Google company,
thank you very much for archiving the discussions
in the scientific groups. Let me say a word on
their value.
Solving problems, I find, is a matter of matching
complexities. If you can get an idea of the
complexity of a problem you can look out for
a matching pattern among potential solutions.
Now the scientific groups were a fantastic means
of getting an idea of the complexity of a problem
- as long as all messages were retrievable.
Alas, more and more messages can't be found
any longer.
The value of your archives will increase with new
ideas published in the scientific groups. But will
people publish their new ideas if their messages
disappear? No, they will held back their ideas,
while ever more trivia and idle chatter will flood
your archives.
Am I right in assuming that you are installing
rating filters? and if so, do you think that such
filters could weed out nonsense and keep the
valuable messages?
Consider the case of two posters A and Z.
Poster A uses a scientific group for publishing
and discussing and further developing new ideas,.
Nobody can prove them wrong, and so he feels
entitled to go on with his work online. Yet poster Z
hates the presence of poster A, envies his wealth
in ideas, attacks him out of the blue, in the hope
to make himself a name by driving him away,
and starts a killrating campaign he leads with a
multitude of aliases, each one with an own Google
account, which allows him multiple rating and
killrating, also toprating own messages. He does
that for years, until the messages of poster A
are filtered out of the system. Would you consider
this the proper way of leading a scientific discussion?
All that counts are scientific arguments, better
arguments, neither ad hominems, nor verdicts
dropped from above, nor a killrating campaign.
Sincereley, Franz Gnaedinger
This has nothing to do with sci.lang. Quit posting your trash here.
[/quote:7e35374f96]
And, ironically, his rant at "the Google company" has the right
addressee but a diametrically wrong problem description. Franz's problem
is that Google readers can't easily block his posts, like the rest of us
do when fascination with madness gives way to boredom from repetition,
and in frustration some click the rating button. He should be begging
for a better filter. Or rather, as the only safe way to avoid rating, he
should be begging Google for a filter that he himself could apply to
block his posts from being read by anyone.
--
Trond Engen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:31 am
|
|