Wil Cali start again as a newbie under new RDF forums?

[klazmon]

Back in the day, Astronomy was a hot bed of the amateur scientist... Will Hay, comic actor, was a prime example of the breed. He trained briefly as an engineer, but dropped it all for acting.
Patrick Moore is a living example. Done a lot of work on Lunar Transients, but doesn't actually have a bit of paper... Not sure how common the 'gentleman amateur' producing publishable obersevations actually is, these days. I think cometry is popular still.

Amateurs contribute to astronomy as much as ever. The advent of the CCD camera has meant that amateur telescopes can these days can do a lot of very useful work. For example the MOA (Mircolensing Observations in Astrophysics) project has a dedicated network of amateurs that do the detailed follow up work and contribute to many scientific papers. See MicroFun Collaboration.

[Oldskeptic]

Salviati wrote:
There were numerous people from whom Richard received actual creative input (not just a few references easily obtained by anyone who knows how to use Google). There were people such as Lisa Bauer who put in many hours of labour. Are you suggesting that by compiling a simple spreadsheet (unnecessary, in any case), you earned a special thanks that would put you on the same footing as these people who contributed to the book in a substantial way?

I don’t think that that is the point. The point is that RDF was denigrated by RD as simply a place for people to go to “Sound off.” Ignoring the fact that there were people like Cali and Lisa there that could and did contribute things of value to him and the forum.

I also take offense to the treatment of people like Cali, the moderators, and many others myself included that wrote well researched and considered posts, and participated in lively debates where intellectual laziness was not tolerated.

I don’t get the impression that Cali is bitching about not getting a mention or credit in a book, more pointing out that this impression of RDF as being just a bunch of unruly idiots is not an accurate picture of what was RDF.

If Rd used RDF and some of its members for research and research assistants then his claim that it was just a place for people to sound off seems somewhat lame.

Also I could point out that one of the last threads started on RDF was a request by RD for help finding a myth for a chapter in the book that he is working on now.

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 4&t=108904

Eleven pages of people happy to wrack there brains and search for something to offer as help and the thanks they get is to be labeled people that just want to sound off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWwUJH70ubM

Maybe a bit sentimental but it’s how I feel.

[Salviati]

I don’t get the impression that Cali is bitching about not getting a mention or credit in a book, more pointing out that this impression of RDF as being just a bunch of unruly idiots is not an accurate picture of what was RDF.

Your impression is wrong. Read the thread. There is a post by Cali in which he complains about not being given credit in Richard's last book.

I think this complaint is absolutely preposterous given that Cali did not do anything but save Richard a bit of time locating a few easily-found figures. Here's the quote:

So the fact that I went to the trouble of compiling an Excel spreadsheet, and wrestling with the bureaucratic obstacles Microsoft erected in my path as I sought to provide RD with a proper exposition of the subject, and went to the trouble of clarifying a good number of details in numerous E-Mail exchanges, didn't even warrant a footnote?

Notice the slippery wording. He talks about "exposition" and "clarifying a good number of details", as if he was actually teaching Richard about the subject instead of just laying out a bunch of figures!

What an egomaniac.

[Blondie]

I don’t get the impression that Cali is bitching about not getting a mention or credit in a book, more pointing out that this impression of RDF as being just a bunch of unruly idiots is not an accurate picture of what was RDF.

Your impression is wrong. Read the thread. There is a post by Cali in which he complains about not being given credit in Richard's last book.

I think this complaint is absolutely preposterous given that Cali did not do anything but save Richard a bit of time locating a few easily-found figures.

I'll ignore the validity/invalidity of your argument and instead cut to the quick: What is your purpose here? To antagonize other members for its own sake? You've done nothing but that so far.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...I don't even (yet) own a PhD myself; surely though I wouldn't consider my own opinions worthless...

...


...


...

[Salviati]

I'll ignore the validity/invalidity of your argument and instead cut to the quick: What is your purpose here? To antagonize other members for its own sake? You've done nothing but that so far.

Calilasseia tried to insinuate that he was teaching Richard a lesson, when in fact, on the basis of the evidence presented, all Calilasseia did was obtain some figures (as anybody with a modicum of scientific knowledge could have done) and participate in a brief two-way dialogue about some finer points. Combined with his bleating about not getting a footnote, I call that egotistical. To me this just seems as plain as paper, and I don't understand why I would button my lip.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I'll ignore the validity/invalidity of your argument and instead cut to the quick: What is your purpose here? To antagonize other members for its own sake? You've done nothing but that so far.

Calilasseia tried to insinuate that he was teaching Richard a lesson, when in fact, on the basis of the evidence presented, all Calilasseia did was obtain some figures (as anybody with a modicum of scientific knowledge could have done) and participate in a brief two-way dialogue about some finer points. Combined with his bleating about not getting a footnote, I call that egotistical. To me this just seems as plain as paper, and I don't understand why I would button my lip.

Because you have just returned from a 24 hour suspension and the next one will be a lot longer if you continue.

Drop this subject. Refrain from calling a fellow member of this forum an egomaniac and either find something constructive to do or else leave.

[Salviati]

You get suspended just for using the word "egomaniac"? You're a bunch of fucking hypocrites. You encourage the most vicious campaign of insults against people like Josh who aren't members of this forum. If somebody is a member of this forum, then suddenly even comments on their perceived egotism become punishable offenses. It was this Nazi bullshit that ruined the RDF forums. I've had enough of this place already.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You get suspended just for using the word "egomaniac"? It was this Nazi bullshit that ruined the RDF forums. I've had enough of this place already.

Via con diablos.

[Ayaan]

You get suspended just for using the word "egomaniac"? You're a bunch of fucking hypocrites. You encourage the most vicious campaign of insults against people like Josh who aren't members of this forum. If somebody is a member of this forum, then suddenly even comments on their perceived egotism become punishable offenses. It was this Nazi bullshit that ruined the RDF forums. I've had enough of this place already.

The rule here is "play nice." You have not been doing that.

[Salviati]

I don't think it is "nice" for Calilasseia to tell lies -- which is essentially what I believe he was doing.

Can you not understand that these rules about "personal insults" and "playing nice" are utterly subjective and systematically prone to bias and double standards? Can you not see that this makes you look like complete idiots, who bay for the blood of Josh Timonen one minute, and then wring your hands about words like "egomaniac" the next minute? Can you not see that this continual intervention in the threads isn't helping anyone? Are you really too limited a human being to see this clearly?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't think it is "nice" for Calilasseia to tell lies -- which is essentially what I believe he was doing.

Can you not understand that these rules about "personal insults" and "playing nice" are utterly subjective and systematically prone to bias and double standards? Can you not see that this continual intervention in the threads isn't helping anyone? Are you really too limited a human being to see this clearly?

Did you say you were leaving?

[hackenslash]

Did you say you were leaving?

[Salviati]

Did you say you were leaving?

From where does this breathtaking insecurity originate? Are you jealous because you perceive me to be more intelligent than you? Were you nettled by some of my comments -- perhaps those about heavy-handed moderators not really helping anyone, and generally being self-indulgent control freaks?

Why are you so insecure that you feel the need to come down on me so strongly after merely a few comments with slightly negative connotations? Why did you not elect to do the obviously sensible thing in this case, which is sit back and see where the dialogue leads?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Did you say you were leaving?

From where does this breathtaking insecurity originate? Are you jealous because you perceive me to be more intelligent than you? Were you nettled by some of my comments -- perhaps those about heavy-handed moderators not really helping anyone, and generally being self-indulgent control freaks?

Why are you so insecure that you feel the need to come down on me so strongly after merely a few comments with slightly negative connotations? Why did you not elect to do the obviously sensible thing in this case, which is sit back and see where the dialogue leads?

You are leaving.