If you will recall Max, I started the string; ”Max™, It just doesn’t make sense!......” October 4 2008 at 9:53 PM, which was directed at you. In that string I asked you to explain to me a passage from Einstein’s ”On The Electrodynamics....” the passage read ”leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena.”.

I specifically stated that I would only accept an answer from you because of your stated knowledge of Special Relativity; ie 22 years, eat, sleep, breath and live relativity, blah blah blah!

I made one point quite clear, which was to (consider how you would explain it to a 12th grader, I think I can handle that.) I was the student and you were to be the teacher. I do not recall ever making any statement that I had anything more than a 12th grade requirement to understanding.

Since that time (and in all likeliness before) I have found you to be plagiarizing other peoples work on more than one occasion to considerable extent. I have also found you wanting in basic grammatical syntax. When confronted with the plagiarism you chose to make excuses which only sends you further down the credibility sink hole. As a student I have the right to expect intellectual integrity, you failed that expectation Max.

You are a discredit to your cause and can not be relied on for any degree of honesty. It may not matter to others but it does to me.

bob s

Come on Bob, plagiaism? About relativity? It's all plagiarism on these forums. You don't really think anybody here is or has claimed to be breaking new ground in theoretical physics do you? Most of the folks here haven't broken the old ground and are still denying relativity after 100 years of demonstrations of its accuracy. It may be ethical to ignore all that, but does it make sense?

cinci

You weren't even here Cinci, so you should familiarize yourself with what happened before making comment.

BobS: You weren't even here Cinci, so you should familiarize yourself with what happened before making comment.


cinci: What? You're starting a whole new trend here?
********************

Specifically he's picking not at my arguments, but at an omission of quotation marks.

I naturally think to put things in [quote][/quote] tags, have been for years now, can't do that here.


The it doesn't make sense thread isn't where I gauged your level of understanding about Relativity, that has been an ongoing process.

Either way, it seems you can't find a way to dissect my statements as they relate to science and logic, so you revert to insults and absurd claims about simple mistakes.

Max, using other peoples work without proper quotation is not a "simple mistake". You are using the "it's to hard and I don't wanna!" excuse.

bob, had I published and claimed that work to be mine, you would have a point.

Yet again, you've misunderstood something and jumped to an illogical conclusion.

Lest we forget the times that anyone else has quoted things from other sources and replied to them without putting quotation marks on this board?

I know I've seen it done more than a few times, but I could tell from the context and reply that they were not claiming the quoted passage as their own.

Unlike you, I actually possess an understanding of the subject matter, and can address others posts as it relates to the material. I do not need to resort to childish attacks on grammar or punctuation or spelling, or claims of plagiarism without ground. As you're so fond of doing.

Max™ said: "I actually possess. . ."


I agree: you are possessed, but with understanding? NO.

Re: Max, it is your intellectual ethics at issue not my educational level! October 24 2008, 5:28 PM

Max,
”bob, had I published and claimed that work to be mine, you would have a point.”

You did publish max, right here on this board. And, by not quoting the material, you presented the material as your own, so yes, I do have a point.

Max,
”Yet again, you've misunderstood something and jumped to an illogical conclusion.”

I mis-understood nothing Max, you used someone else’s material so the conclusion that you plagiarized was not illogical.

Max,
”Lest we forget the times that anyone else has quoted things from other sources and replied to them without putting quotation marks on this board?”

Not to me that I am aware of. Your message was addressed to me.

Max,
”I know I've seen it done more than a few times, but I could tell from the context and reply that they were not claiming the quoted passage as their own.”

That was your choice Max, so obviously your standards are lower than mine. If you think I should stoop to your level you are mistaken. You and I are intellectual adversaries Max, I have no reason to tolerate ambiguity, fragmented sentences, plagiarism or mis-construing what I say. If you are unable to rise to my level of honest communication then you can just live with my rebukes of your illiteracy. You followed me for a week proclaiming to the board that I was avoiding you question and I proved you wrong. Now I will follow you and proclaim to the very same board that you are a plagiarist and I have proved that fact also. You could have just apologized and been done with it, but No! Not Max, you have tried every wormy excuse you could think of to justify your plagiarism.

Max,
”Unlike you, I actually possess an understanding of the subject matter,...”

The subject is intellectual ethics, so yes, your understanding is unlike mine.

Max,
”...and can address others posts as it relates to the material.”

The only material you address is that which you want to say, you pay very little attention to what others have to say except on rare occasions.

Max,
”I do not need to resort to childish attacks on grammar or punctuation or spelling, or claims of plagiarism without ground. As you're so fond of doing.”

I have never attacked grammar, punctuation, spelling or plagiarism without ground, so, for you to say otherwise is just another lie. I am not just “fond of doing” Max, I am proud of my grasp of the English language and composition. You were proud of doing a foolish experiment at 100mph, that was childish Max.

You speak of being my intellectual adversary as though you could actually carry out a discussion with me on the same level.

You've not shown it, you and I aren't equals with regards to this subject. You think yourself graduated beyond the point of learning. I know that I will never stop learning, and know that you have much to learn as well.

Until you can rise above petty, meaningless little quibbles like your ridiculous claim of plagiarism, or your claim that I was being indifferent, or your claim that I was hounding you... and actually discuss the subject at hand from a base of understanding, I'm not worried about you.

You made the ridiculous claim that I was trying to teach you at a childish level, now I'm stating that you're trying to argue at one. I can do that anywhere.


Honestly I'm disappointed, is that the best you've got?

You are actually proud of your dis-honesty Max.

In a strange way I'm almost proud that I've managed to get so close to showing you guys that Relativity is correct, and I can tell that I did start making sense of it, because of the ridiculously childish backlash I've been getting.

Max, your indignation has made my efforts well worth while, thank you.

And just for the record Max, you are about as close to getting anyone here to believe that Relativity is correct as Cincirob is to getting a PHD with his GED.

bob s

I answered questions, explained misunderstandings, debunked "experts", and actually had you yourself open up enough to ask if I could explain something which you felt didn't make sense.

Then, suddenly, I'm indifferent, insulting, childish, plagiarizing, hounding, and avoiding things.


The simplest explanation is that I made sense, you realized that and didn't like it, so you decided to ignore the implication that I may actually both know what I'm talking about, AND be right. So you could cling to your previous stance and attack me.

Re: Max, it is your intellectual ethics at issue not my educational level! October 26 2008, 9:25 PM

Max,
”I answered questions,...”

You have responded to questions Max, but, those responses were not answers to the questions asked.

Max,
”explained misunderstandings,...”

You were the source of the misunderstandings Max.

Max,
”debunked "experts",...”

You disagreed with the “expert” Max, you did not “debunk” anything.

Max,
”and actually had you yourself open up enough to ask if I could explain something which you felt didn't make sense.”

Yes Max! I did afford you the opportunity to explain a point that did not make sense. However, your explanation made less sense than the original quoted passage. You gave me the answer I was expecting and I saw no reason to push the issue any further at that time.

Max,
”Then, suddenly, I'm indifferent, insulting, childish, plagiarizing, hounding, and avoiding things.”

You forgot “condescending”, “lying” and “arrogant” Max. There was nothing sudden about it though, you have been that way since you came on this board. Although I do not know when you started plagiarizing, I assume that, with your attitude about intellectual thievery, you have, in all likelihood, been doing it long before you came here.

Max,
”The simplest explanation is that I made sense,...”

Wrong! You simply do not make sense Max.

Max,
”you realized that and didn't like it,...”

What I don’t “like” Max, is being lied about.

Max,
”...so you decided to ignore the implication that I may actually both know what I'm talking about, AND be right.”

Actually Max, your statements to that effect were quite brazen, which is hard to ignore. Your only implication was to the effect that I (we) should acquiesce to your superior intellect.

Max,
”So you could cling to your previous stance and attack me.”

“[P]revious stance”? I have not changed my stance Max. And, I have not attacked you, I have only pointed out your personality and intellectual defects, of which, you can now add “brazen” to the list. Your 22yr confinement has left you with no social redeeming values Max, so it has been my compassionate efforts to help restore to you some reason to continue living. To show you my good intent Max, I decided to not point out to you that your last sentence was fragmented.

That's cute that you feel that way, do you have anything to say regarding the subject matter, that being The Theory of Relativity?

Re: Max, it is your intellectual ethics at issue not my educational level! October 27 2008, 5:38 AM

Max,
"That's cute that you feel that way, do you have anything to say regarding the subject matter, that being The Theory of Relativity?"

That shows how connected you are Max, the string tag line is; "Re: Max, it is your intellectual ethics at issue not my educational level! October 27 2008, 5:38 AM" The issue is "intellectual ethics" and the subject is "Max [You]". My post of Oct. 27, 2008, 12:30 AM is more than just "cute" Max, it is on point as to both issue and subject, and furthermore, judging from your response, irrefutable. I have a right to respond to un-warranted attacks.

If you wish to start a new string on the subject of Relativity be my guest. I personally, would welcome some original ideas from you. It would give me (us) relief from you constantly refuting, out of hand, otherwise well reasoned discourse. Due try and be original though.

OH NOES, YOU MADE A TYPO, THERE GOES YOUR ARGUMENT BASED ON RIDICULOUS GROUNDS!

Just to more thoroughly refute your longer post.

I answered questions about the theory of relativity, unfortunately, most of them were based on a near complete lack of understanding about said theory. So no, it wouldn't seem like I had answered the questions, as I first had to correct the question itself, to then apply a truthful answer related to the topic.

I showed that Dingle didn't understand the theory, and only disproved his own understanding, repeatedly, every time he got brought up. I showed that Flandern is a liar, and also that most of the people Pentcho posts, actually agree with Einstein.

I'm not the source of the misunderstandings about relativity on this board, they were here before I arrived.

I took on a Herculean effort to attempt to budge the shroud of ignorance which holds sway, but I should have known better.


You realize anti-relativists, non-relativists, whatever label you choose, are essentially the same thing as Flat-Earthers, and 7 Day Creationists, right?


Just because you don't have a problem sticking your heads in the sand, doesn't mean you're not being ignorant.

Re: Max, it is your intellectual ethics at issue not my educational level! October 27 2008, 3:22 PM

Max,
”OH NOES, YOU MADE A TYPO, THERE GOES YOUR ARGUMENT BASED ON RIDICULOUS GROUNDS!”

Are you equating plagiarism to a typo? Max.

Max,
”Just to more thoroughly refute your longer post.”

Why did you not just try that in the first place? Max. But, which post would that be, you don't say.

Max,
”I answered questions about the theory of relativity, unfortunately, most of them were based on a near complete lack of understanding about said theory. So no, it wouldn't seem like I had answered the questions, as I first had to correct the question itself, to then apply a truthful answer related to the topic.”

If you changed the question Max, then your answers were “not answers to the questions asked.” were they?

Max,
”I showed that Dingle didn't understand the theory, and only disproved his own understanding, repeatedly, every time he got brought up. I showed that Flandern is a liar, and also that most of the people Pentcho posts, actually agree with Einstein.”

That statement is a perfect example of you creating mis-understanding; you connected Dingle, Flandern, Pentcho and Einstein, none of which have anything to do with the subject or issue at hand.

Max,
”I'm not the source of the misunderstandings about relativity on this board, they were here before I arrived.”

It is only an opinion that we mis-understand relativity. Every non-relativist I know understands relativity we just don’t accept it as being rational.

Max,
”I took on a Herculean effort to attempt to budge the shroud of ignorance which holds sway, but I should have known better.”

Well, now you know better, it is you after all, who is under the shroud not us, Max.


Max,
”You realize anti-relativists, non-relativists, whatever label you choose, are essentially the same thing as Flat-Earthers, and 7 Day Creationists, right?”.

I fail to see the connection you imply Max, I do however, see a connection between relativists and Medieval Church, if the Phdeists could burn us they would.

Max,
”Just because you don't have a problem sticking your heads in the sand, doesn't mean you're not being ignorant.”

Better I should have my head in the sand than up my arse, but far be it from me to deny you the right to stick you head wherever you wish, Max.

Yet again you miss my point.

What you claim Relativity states, is NOT what Relativity states.

I've yet to see one of you actually describe truthfully what the theory states, and then express your reasons for claiming it to be false based on that description.


Let me dumb it down for you.


It's like you're arguing that basic math is wrong, because you claim basic math says 2 + 2 = 5.


Your arguments against Relativity are based on YOUR ignorance of the facts, and YOUR misunderstanding of the theory, not one of you has yet posed an actual argument against SR or GR which is based on the theories themselves.

You've only proven your own understanding of the Theory to be incorrect.

Max™ said: "Your arguments against Relativity are based on YOUR ignorance of the facts, and YOUR misunderstanding of the theory, not one of you has yet posed an actual argument against SR or GR which is based on the theories themselves."

Curt says: I don't know about arguments. I do know that various posters have pointed out the absurdities. You see none, therefore you argue. You have a propensity to overlook the absurdities. We can't help you here. But don't go away, You can always serve as a bad example for us. And sometimes you make us search our thoughts just to confirm that we are right.

Silly child, the only absurdities you've pointed out, are creations of your own incomplete understanding.


Over and over again you rant and rave that 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong, but YOU are the one who claimed the theory said that. NOT Einstein.


You are the source of the confusion and error, and when you have the curtain of ignorance torn aside, you recoil in horror and begin throwing insults.

The other big problem you have Max, is the inability to come up with new insults, ain't you learnt notin yet; the, you is a child is booooooring!

I'm not insulting you, I'm just being honest finally.

I tried to be nice and avoid calling you an ignorant fool who is so blinded by his own misconceptions he doesn't even realize the BS he claims to smell is in fact inside his own diaper.


You are the scientific equivalent of a flat-earther or a 7 day creationist.


You parrot arguments which seem to make sense to you, not even beginning to grasp the meaning behind them, and when you accidentally contradict them, you don't even understand that you did.


I gave you too much credit, I assumed you had some idea what you were talking about when it came to Relativity.


I was wrong.

Re: Max, it is your intellectual ethics at issue not my educational level! October 31 2008, 1:33 PM

Max,
"I'm not insulting you,..."

That's right Max, you are not insulting me.

Max,
"I'm just being honest finally."

"[F]inally"! Max, I doubt it, but let's just see how it goes from here.

There is no hope for him. Honesty is a minor problem for him. He's one of the original Dodge boys. Contemplation and logic pose no boundaries for him. He would make an ambassador, not necessarily a good one, but one that could cover and run.