NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/physics/23634

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 5.8 KB | 114 lines

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!rtech!pacbell.com!ames!agate!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!henry.ece.cmu.edu!snyder
From: [e-mail] (John Snyder)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: Are there imp
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Physics Department, Carnegie Mellon University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:01:40 GMT
Lines: 102

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>
>You don't need moderators.  You've already hounded Hannu and her
>space- potatoes off the net and Abian is down to about two or
>three entries out of about 150 on my conference menu.  You should
>let people make up their own minds about what they want to read -
>whether it's good enough to spend their time on.  It worries me to
>hear you discussing how 'tough' you should be - as though this
>newsgroup was a place to show off cleverness rather than a point
>of communication for everyone on the net interested in physics and
>physics-related issues.  If you want a showcase for your
>knowledge, surely there are journals with editors who are probably
>tougher than any of you are qualified to be.  No, what is
>happening here is what inevitably happens when a group of
>strangers come together, whether the forum is an electronic
>'physics' conference, or a would-be-writers' circle in an English
>village - people jostle to be noticed, the more visible ones form
>alliances; a pecking-order - often based on nothing more than who
>has the loudest voice and is prepared to be publicly nastiest -
>emerges; runts are picked on and then picked off, dissenters are
>regarded first with humour, then with scorn, contempt and finally
>they are excluded (I am thinking of one name in particular here
>and it ain't Abian).  I am no scientist, but the tone of your
>bickerings and the fact that you are able constantly to pick one
>another up on what appear to be the most basic points of fact,
>indicates to me that most of you have a fairly unsure grasp of
>your subject and are less than secure about your status vis a vis
>the others in the newsgroup.  My god, the way you all reacted to
>Abian was a real object-lesson in immaturity!  I have collected
>more than 400 of Abian's 'articles' and your responses over a four
>month period - what was really fascinating about them was not what
>Abian had to say - it was you!  One by one like schoolboys in a
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>playground you lined up to kick the runt the bullies had started
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>on.  Do none of you really understand about Professor Abian?
 ^^

WHOA!  That's not at all how it happened.  I suggest that rather
than merely collecting the articles, you try to read and understand
the responses.  Quite a number of us actually tried to seriously
discuss the physics involved in Abian's posts with him.  His response
was always either to totally ignore our posts, or to respond with
insults, invective, and ridicule.  I, for one, actually devised
an experiment to test one of his "theories".  He had no interest
in it.  (Probably, because he suspected what the outcome would be.)
The reason you see people respond to his posts for a while then
disappear, was that each person was deluded into thinking, "Well
that person Abian did not take other people's posts seriously,
but perhaps he will listen to me.  Perhaps he will understand
if I express things from my viewpoint."  After a few insulting
and ridiculing responses, each in turn would think, "Who needs
this?!  He clearly does not want to listen to me either.  Let
someone else talk to him."

Abian was not interested in doing or even discussing physics.
Rather, he was interested in drama.  He had a stage, and a role
to play that he relished.  He played it to the hilt.  You
seem to have enjoyed the drama.  Fine.  However don't delude
yourself into thinking that any physics was going on.  It wasn't
physics.  It was theatre.
Don't make the following logical mistake:
1)  Established physicists call this guy Abian a crackpot.
2)  Established physicists called some of the greatest physicists
of all time crackpots.
3)  Therefore this guy Abian must be one of the greatest physicists
of all time.
(the third statement does not follow from the first 2)

Just because a guy is called a crackpot, that does not mean that
his "theories" are great.


>Honestly?  Should I spell it out for you in words of one syllable?
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, absolutely!  Please do.  I for one, would like to hear this.
If you don't want to do it on the net, please aat least send it
to me by email.

>Was your reaction wise, or kind, or necessary?  How you puffed and
>strutted, as you put the boot in, one after another.  Well, you
>people may be clever, but you're not very intelligent.  You're not
>very wise.  You're not very kind.  And now you've all got so
>worked up about winning one another's worthless approval that
>you're going to let your conference be hijacked by a
>self-appointed clique who are going to tell you what it's okay to
>read and to know and to discuss.  How very dismal.   You ought to
>re-read Abian's final comment - the one he intended to be his
>epitaph - for not one of you has understood the beauty of it.
>Abian said: 'On Judgement Day I will put the entire Creation on
>trial'.  Your name is never going to be up there alongside
> Newton, Einstein, Planck, Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Pauli
>and the rest until you realise that Judgement Day is not the day
>the world ends, but the day it begins.  It's every day.
>Especially today.


John
[e-mail]