harry wrote on Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:19:02 +0100:

"Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" wrote in
message news
harry wrote on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:40:33 +0100:

"Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" wrote in
message news I have contacted two historians on science. One has found the webpage
ok
and suggested a correction i have included in last

http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/r...e/history.html

Other wrote

{BLOCKQUOTE
Your project looks promising and interesting! }

but adds he wait to the complete version of the website for a final
evaluation,

{BLOCKQUOTE
I wish you a good fothcoming, I will look on your homepage in some
weeks again.
}

How different from unfair criticism by amateur Tom Roberts!

Your reaction is understandable but I think that you are not being
fair he he is not an historian of science, but there is no need to
rub it in. Such comments -- even if true --are close to name-calling,
and not useful at all.

I think i have been kindly. In my opinion, Roberts words were *very*
unfair

That's why I wrote:
"Your reaction is understandable "

{BLOCKQUOTE [Tom Roberts]
That website displays the bias of its author much more strongly than
than any defensible view of the history of science. It is revisionist
history at its worst
}

Also in point 10 of Roberts' (and Siegmar Schleif) FAQ

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/
experiments.html#Experiments_not_consistent_with_S R

one can read

"Amateurs look for patterns, professionals look at error bars."

I am rather sure that Roberts uses that phrase to warn his readers
about certain incorrect literature.

I have remarked Roberts 'amateurism' on history of relativity by a
similar motive.

If Roberts is not a historian of science -of course Roberts is not-
then he would avoid to write unfair postings as that of above.

You gave him Tit-For-Tat. That is very understandable.

--
I apply http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

Again: I do understand it, but I don't think that giving tit-for-tat is
in line with your guidelines. You could have stated the same - to the
same effect concerning yourself - without mentioning names.

Regards,
Harald

I have thought about that and you are completely right.

Originaly I did guidelines for avoiding crap, insults, nonsense, dogmas...

The final goal for guidelines is improving newsgroup experience in some
way. If most people follows the guidelines the newsgroup will become more
civilisated.

But i have failed to follow my own guidelines strictly.

One of my bigest failures here and on sci.physics.foundations, and
sci.physics.research has been i have given voice (i.e. importance) to
people who i would have given little or even none.

Thinking about that mistake now, i would re-read Tom roberts criticism of
the webpage and would ask:

What *real* importance has what Tom Roberts wrote?

Is Roberts message really important how to take it into account (i.e.
seriously)? Or can it be simply ignored?

Who did aplaud Roberts message? Dono? That says everything...

In conclusion, i will do an effort to avoid hooks :-) and follow
guidelines *strictly*.


--
I apply http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

"Juan R. González-Álvarez" wrote in
message news
harry wrote on Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:19:02 +0100:

"Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" wrote in
message news
harry wrote on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:40:33 +0100:

"Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" wrote in
message news I have contacted two historians on science. One has found the webpage
ok
and suggested a correction i have included in last

http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/r...e/history.html

Other wrote

{BLOCKQUOTE
Your project looks promising and interesting! }

but adds he wait to the complete version of the website for a final
evaluation,

{BLOCKQUOTE
I wish you a good fothcoming, I will look on your homepage in some
weeks again.
}

How different from unfair criticism by amateur Tom Roberts!

Your reaction is understandable but I think that you are not being
fair he he is not an historian of science, but there is no need to
rub it in. Such comments -- even if true --are close to name-calling,
and not useful at all.

I think i have been kindly. In my opinion, Roberts words were *very*
unfair

That's why I wrote:
"Your reaction is understandable "

{BLOCKQUOTE [Tom Roberts]
That website displays the bias of its author much more strongly than
than any defensible view of the history of science. It is revisionist
history at its worst
}

Also in point 10 of Roberts' (and Siegmar Schleif) FAQ

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/
experiments.html#Experiments_not_consistent_with_S R

one can read

"Amateurs look for patterns, professionals look at error bars."

I am rather sure that Roberts uses that phrase to warn his readers
about certain incorrect literature.

I have remarked Roberts 'amateurism' on history of relativity by a
similar motive.

If Roberts is not a historian of science -of course Roberts is not-
then he would avoid to write unfair postings as that of above.

You gave him Tit-For-Tat. That is very understandable.

--
I apply http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

Again: I do understand it, but I don't think that giving tit-for-tat is
in line with your guidelines. You could have stated the same - to the
same effect concerning yourself - without mentioning names.

Regards,
Harald

I have thought about that and you are completely right.

Originaly I did guidelines for avoiding crap, insults, nonsense, dogmas...

The final goal for guidelines is improving newsgroup experience in some
way. If most people follows the guidelines the newsgroup will become more
civilisated.

But i have failed to follow my own guidelines strictly.

I'm happy to see that you admit that. And as consolation: I sometimes make
the same mistake. It must be human. :-)

One of my bigest failures here and on sci.physics.foundations, and
sci.physics.research has been i have given voice (i.e. importance) to
people who i would have given little or even none.

Thinking about that mistake now, i would re-read Tom roberts criticism of
the webpage and would ask:

What *real* importance has what Tom Roberts wrote?

Is Roberts message really important how to take it into account (i.e.
seriously)? Or can it be simply ignored?

Who did aplaud Roberts message? Dono? That says everything...

IMHO, even better would have been to not react in particular: ignoring
unfounded negative remarks while at the same time countering them is perhaps
most effective.

In conclusion, i will do an effort to avoid hooks :-) and follow
guidelines *strictly*.

:-)

I apply http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

Best regards,
Harald

On Mar 14, 3:02 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
harry wrote on Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:19:02 +0100:



"Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" wrote in
messagenewsan.2008.03.13.18.56.57@VEcanonicalsci ence.com...
harry wrote on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:40:33 +0100:

"Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" wrote in
messagenewsan.2008.03.13.11.29.38@VEcanonicalsci ence.com...
I have contacted two historians on science. One has found the webpage
ok
and suggested a correction i have included in last

http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/r...e/history.html

Other wrote

{BLOCKQUOTE
Your project looks promising and interesting! }

but adds he wait to the complete version of the website for a final
evaluation,

{BLOCKQUOTE
I wish you a good fothcoming, I will look on your homepage in some
weeks again.
}

How different from unfair criticism by amateur Tom Roberts!

Your reaction is understandable but I think that you are not being
fair he he is not an historian of science, but there is no need to
rub it in. Such comments -- even if true --are close to name-calling,
and not useful at all.

I think i have been kindly. In my opinion, Roberts words were *very*
unfair

That's why I wrote:
"Your reaction is understandable "

{BLOCKQUOTE [Tom Roberts]
That website displays the bias of its author much more strongly than
than any defensible view of the history of science. It is revisionist
history at its worst
}

Also in point 10 of Roberts' (and Siegmar Schleif) FAQ

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/
experiments.html#Experiments_not_consistent_with_S R

one can read

"Amateurs look for patterns, professionals look at error bars."

I am rather sure that Roberts uses that phrase to warn his readers
about certain incorrect literature.

I have remarked Roberts 'amateurism' on history of relativity by a
similar motive.

If Roberts is not a historian of science -of course Roberts is not-
then he would avoid to write unfair postings as that of above.

You gave him Tit-For-Tat. That is very understandable.

--
I applyhttp://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt

Again: I do understand it, but I don't think that giving tit-for-tat is
in line with your guidelines. You could have stated the same - to the
same effect concerning yourself - without mentioning names.

Regards,
Harald

I have thought about that and you are completely right.

Originaly I did guidelines for avoiding crap, insults, nonsense, dogmas...

The final goal for guidelines is improving newsgroup experience in some
way. If most people follows the guidelines the newsgroup will become more
civilisated.

But i have failed to follow my own guidelines strictly.

One of my bigest failures here and on sci.physics.foundations, and
sci.physics.research has been i have given voice (i.e. importance) to
people who i would have given little or even none.

Thinking about that mistake now, i would re-read Tom roberts criticism of
the webpage and would ask:

What *real* importance has what Tom Roberts wrote?

Is Roberts message really important how to take it into account (i.e.
seriously)? Or can it be simply ignored?

Who did aplaud Roberts message? Dono? That says everything...

In conclusion, i will do an effort to avoid hooks :-) and follow
guidelines *strictly*.

--
I applyhttp://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt



It says that you are a jerk that sallivates and masturbates at trying
to discredit relativity in general and Einstein in specific. All you
get is the foam at the corners of your mouth.

Supertroll Dono trolled:

It says that you are

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

and

http://www.helinium.nl/trolltech.gif


--
Dono is concubine Lady Chacha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodo-Dono