Stephen Speicher wrote in message
...
Except for the "Who said this ..." series I no longer read or
post to this group. However, it has been brought to my attention
that since my departure more than two months ago, Barry Mingst
(aka greywolf42) has been claiming that I am the author of the
web site

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm

Upon searching google.com I indeed found a dozen or so postings
in which Mingst made claims such as

"This site is the work of Stephen Speicher."

"Even the author (Speicher) ..."

"The problem is that the link is Steven[sic] Speicher's
derivation ..."

For the record, that site is not my "work," nor am I "the author"
of that site, nor does that site contain my "derivation." In
fact, apart from admiring the content of a great deal of the
mathpages.com web site, I am not connected with that site in any
way. Barry Mingst fabricated this story out of whole cloth, just
as he fabricates many stories about historical figures in
physics. Mingst is a true pathological case whose word cannot be
trusted.

After refusing for months to identify whether he was the author of that
slime site (since February -- LONG before Stephen's "avoidance" of
sci.physics.relativity) -- and despite my repeated explicit requests --
Stephen claims that I "fabricated this story out of whole cloth."

Now, Stephen claims that he found a "dozen or so" postings with this claim.
But the large majority of the "dozen or so posts" were made before Stephen
"left" the group. So he has no reason to complain. Indeed, most were made
directly to Stephen, PLEADING for him to admit or deny authorship. In
threads that Stephen thereafter abandoned.


So now my question to Stephen (and the other DHR's who proffer the site as
valid -- without ever defending it) is -- why do you support this slime
site, when you know it's false allegation, deliberate distortion and
outright lies?

And -- more important -- WHO IS the author of this slime, and how do we get
it corrected or removed?


The nitty-gritty follows:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Stephen's first link to the slime site (2/21/03, Einstein and Bjerknes'
References) implied that HE was the author of the site:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...r=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=v5fjk2bj3v1c20%40corp.supernews.com
================================
"I have given summaries of von Laue's analysis, as well as the more detailed
analysis by Roseveare, as well as giving references to each. If "greywolf42"
is unable to read technical analyses in papers and books, perhaps he can
read an online summary instead.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm" (The slime site)
================================

Note how the sentence begins that Speicher claims to have given
1)"summaries" of one analysis,
2) a more detailed analysis by Roseveare,
3) references to each (of Speicher's analyses),
4) an online summary is: the slime site.

NOW Speicher is apparently claiming that the "summary" is not a summary of
HIS work.

Fine.

Now in my response to Speicher's posting of the slime site, I made it clear
that I thought that Speicher was the author -- based on Speicher's sentence
above. Instead of correcting what Stephen now claims was a "fabrication",
he inferred that he didn't write the site -- but didn't actually deny it.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...=&ie=UTF-8&sel
m=v5igsg5hlb8te8%40corp.supernews.com
====================
Steve the S:
"I gave you three references, all of which I have read and analyzed in
detail, but ... I also pointed you to an online source."

Now this specific statement taken out of context (because Steve snipped the
context, of course) may indeed be correct. But Steve removed the context by
snipping my explicit request that Steve provide why HE thought Gerber's work
was disproved. Now let's look at what Steve actually wrote in the text:

Steve the S:
"I have given summaries of von Laue's analysis, as well as the more detailed
analysis by Roseveare, as well as giving references to each. If "greywolf42"
is unable to read technical analyses in papers and books, perhaps he can
read an online summary instead.

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm"

Now upon reading those words, one may easily construe that Steve is claiming
that the weblink is an online summary of his own summaries of von Laue's and
Roseveare's analysis. Since Steve states that HE personally has given these
summaries, one can only conclude that Steve is claiming authorship of this
webpage. Now in this recent post, Steve faults me for taking "the pointer
as something which I wrote, and then proceeded to embarrass yourself by
referring to 'Speicher's work is a classic example of a straw-man hatchet
job.'"

Oddly enough, the web page has no authorship or attribution. Nor does the
homepage. Nor does any of the multiple "authoritative" subjects contained
on in the "Mathpages" domain. There is no contact or identity given
anywhere. So I was unable to verify that Steve had written this particular
piece. (I looked.) Steve now blames "Kevin Brown, of 'Mathpages' fame
(sic)" for the slimy, cowardly, lying piece. But all I had to go on was
Steve's poor wording.

Yep, that's a "really bizarre reason" to conclude that Steve wrote the
piece. (Oddly enough, Steve still hasn't actually disavowed authorship of
the filth. He merely stated that it was "bizarre" that I concluded that it
was him. I highly doubt that Kevin Brown has had the time to create all of
the multiple analyses by himself, from scratch -- without input from
others.)

Besides, even if Steve didn't write the piece himself, he is no less guilty
for championing and disseminating the filth, and asserting it's
authoritative validity. He's tarred with his own brush -- even if
"Speicher's work" is only disseminating the filth and he didn't write it.
That's like Goebbels claiming innocence because he only hired the propaganda
writers.
====================

On 2/25/03 I attempted to get Stephen to clarify his (non?)authorship of the
site:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...=&ie=UTF-8&sel
m=v5o1fkmvdonq57%40corp.supernews.com
===============
The "author" of your filthy hatchet piece screwed up the analysis. But you
can't admit it. The AUTHOR of the hatchet piece admitted that he didn't
understand Gerber's paper. Could barely understand Roseveare's summary.
Identified many typos in Roseveare's summary. Confabulated entire new
levels of physics and fancy onto the base. And then blamed Gerber for his
("the Author's") failure.

Did you write it? (Yes or no. You keep evading.)
===============

and in the same post....

===============
For a man with so many references, you have very
poor short-term memory. You may recall that YOUR slimy hatchet piece
(whether it was your writing or not) admitted that the author didn't
understand Gerber -- and couldn't follow Roseveare. You either didn't read
your own reference -- or explicitly condone lies and distortion for your own
ends. Which is it? Do you stand behind this piece of swamp muck? Or do
you disavow it, now that it's been "caught?"
===============


And on 2/26/03:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...r=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=v5q761ed6c7e5e%40corp.supernews.com
===============
Note: Speicher again refuses to admit or to deny that he wrote the filthy
hatchet piece on Gerber. Which pretty well confirms that he wrote it -- as
he had originally indicated.
===============

and, in the same post

===============
After smearing Gerber, Speicher cannot even have the decency to either stand
behind his smear (borrowed or written) or disavow it. He wants to have his
cake and eat it too.
===============

At which point Speicher evaded my posts in the thread, still supporting the
slime, and unwilling to admit or deny authorship.....



The slime site was abandoned for awhile by the relativists -- now that it
was exposed. But after awhile, the DHR's apparently felt enough time had
gone by to try to push the slime as an authoritative response to Gerber's
work:



For example, 2 1/2 months later, on 5/15/03, Speicher again tried to make
use of his reference to the slime-site:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...=&ie=UTF-8&sel
m=vc8ktqj7260f70%40corp.supernews.com
==================
Speicher:
You waste your time trying to convey facts to greywolf42 about
matters such as these. Many people have made him aware of the
facts in regard to Gerber, in more detail than what Pauli has to
say, but facts are not the coin of the realm in the candy store
of physics run by greywolf42.

greywolf42:
Right, Stephen. Just like that pathetic lying trashing of a dead man that
you posted. You still won't admit or deny authorship.
==================

and on 5/16/03, in a reply to Ed Zampino, I again attempted to get Stephen
to admit or deny authorship:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...r=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=vca8csbd2f678a%40corp.supernews.com
==================
One of these claims is posted on the web. The "author" of the piece
(Stephen Speicher*) screwed up the analysis. The AUTHOR of the hatchet
piece admitted that he didn't understand Gerber's paper. Could barely
understand Roseveare's summary of Gerber's paper. Identified many typos in
Roseveare's summary. Confabulated entire new levels of physics and fancy
onto the base. And then blamed Gerber for his
("the Author's") failure. (*Stephen initally pointed to this site as "his".
But there is no author listed on the page, analysis or site. And later,
Stephen "implied" that he may not have written the piece. But he will not
state whether or not he is actually the author -- despite numerous
requests.)
==================


Speicher "officially" left sci.physics.relativity on 5/18/03 -- still
without admitting or denying whether he was the author of the slime site.
Despite a dozen explicit requests over a 3 month period.

After Stephen "left", Dirk van der Mortel again trotted out the slime (on
6/2):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...r=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=vdneeha9tchl8a%40corp.supernews.com
=================
Dink:
Instead, have a look at
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm

greywolf42:
You'll note that that piece of slime is unattributed. This pathetic, lying
hatchet piece on the work of a dead man -- submitted by Stephen Speicher --
was already exposed and eviscerated in this newsgroup:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...=&ie=UTF-8&sel
m=v5igsg5hlb8te8%40corp.supernews.com

After this expose, the silence (from Dirk and others) was deafening.
As usual, Dirk lay low and let Speicher do the dirty work.
=================
Note that here I was explicit about Stephen only "submitting" the link. Not
authoring it.


And on 6/3, Patrick (not Reany) again pushed the slime link provided by
Dirk:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...r=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=vdphv2d52jfo7a%40corp.supernews.com
=================
I dunnno. The link given by Dirk Van Moortel is very clear in its
explanation of gerbers derivation.

The problem is that the link is Steven Speicher's derivation -- not Gerbers.
It's not even BASED on Gerber's paper! Had you bothered to read anything
I'd written, you'd understand that. Of course, it WAS clear that the link
was totally at sea:

The link is written based on a typo-ridden summation (Roseveare) of Gerber's
paper. Roseveare claimed Gerber's work was "not at all clear" to him
(Roseveare) -- perhaps because Gerber's paper was in German. The link notes
that "it's difficult to guess precisely what Gerber had in mind."
Nonetheless, the link is quite willing to forge ahead and slam a paper that
he doesn't have and hasn't read -- based on an admittedly flawed critique
written by someone who admitted they couldn't follow what Gerber was doing!

Of course, instead of working from Roseveare (who admittedly couldn't follow
Gerber's work), perhaps Stephen could have worked from a different
contemporaneous source. That's why I pointed you to Petr Beckmann's
"Einstein Plus Two." Beckmann had no problems reading and understanding
Gerber's work. And provided a shortened version, using more modern
mathematical tools (section 3.2).
=================
Here I have left room for Speicher's unwillingness to commit himself. "The
author". "The link." Stephen's "derivation" that he provided (way back in
his original post) was simply this link.


The slime site again reappears, submitted by Ed Stamm 6/11/03:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...=&ie=UTF-8&sel
m=vef6d62uutsu4b%40corp.supernews.com
=================
The fallacies and
errors in Gerber's "reasoning" are described in the web page at
www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm.

And -- as has been pointed out repeatedly -- that particular web page is a
morass of false allegation, deliberate distortion and outright lies. Why do
you point to that pathetic, lying crap? Gerber's "reasoning" exists nowhere
in that trash heap. Even the author (Speicher) has refused to back up that
site.
=================
Here I explicitly identify Speicher as the author. After 4 months without a
denial, I figured that Stephen was the primary author (as his original post
implied).


And the slime reappears from Thomas Clarke: 7/14/03:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...r=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=vh73eno4uikq08%40corp.supernews.com
=================
This site is the work of Stephen Speicher. The author admitted he didn't
read Gerber's work. Admitted he couldn't understand Roseveare's summary of
Gerber's work and found many "typos" in Roseveare's summary. That didn't
stop the author from blaming everything on Gerber.
=================
Note the "the author" to allow for Stephen's continued reluctance to commit
himself.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

snip venom

I was very curious a while back about the authorship of the mathpages, and
accidentally came across evidence pointing to the identity of another member
of the author's family.

The evidence that I have shows definitively that the mathpages weren't
authored by Stephen. No, I'm afraid I can't let you know the nature of this
evidence. The author is a very private person, and I wish to respect his
privacy.

Minor Crank

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
|
| Stephen Speicher wrote in message
| ...
| Except for the "Who said this ..." series I no longer read or
| post to this group. However, it has been brought to my attention
| that since my departure more than two months ago, Barry Mingst
| (aka greywolf42) has been claiming that I am the author of the
| web site
|
| http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
|
| Upon searching google.com I indeed found a dozen or so postings
| in which Mingst made claims such as
|
| "This site is the work of Stephen Speicher."
|
| "Even the author (Speicher) ..."
|
| "The problem is that the link is Steven[sic] Speicher's
| derivation ..."
|
| For the record, that site is not my "work," nor am I "the author"
| of that site, nor does that site contain my "derivation." In
| fact, apart from admiring the content of a great deal of the
| mathpages.com web site, I am not connected with that site in any
| way. Barry Mingst fabricated this story out of whole cloth, just
| as he fabricates many stories about historical figures in
| physics. Mingst is a true pathological case whose word cannot be
| trusted.
|
| After refusing for months to identify whether he was the author of that
| slime site (since February -- LONG before Stephen's "avoidance" of
| sci.physics.relativity) -- and despite my repeated explicit requests --
| Stephen claims that I "fabricated this story out of whole cloth."
|
| Now, Stephen claims that he found a "dozen or so" postings with this
claim.
| But the large majority of the "dozen or so posts" were made before
Stephen
| "left" the group. So he has no reason to complain. Indeed, most were
made
| directly to Stephen, PLEADING for him to admit or deny authorship. In
| threads that Stephen thereafter abandoned.
|
|
| So now my question to Stephen (and the other DHR's who proffer the site
as
| valid -- without ever defending it) is -- why do you support this slime
| site, when you know it's false allegation, deliberate distortion and
| outright lies?
|
| And -- more important -- WHO IS the author of this slime, and how do we
get
| it corrected or removed?

A simple Whois search will most likely give you a lead.

FrediFizzx

"greywolf42" wrote in message
| Stephen Speicher wrote in message
| For the record, that site is not my "work," nor am I "the author"
| of that site,

| And -- more important -- WHO IS the author of this slime,
| and how do we get
| it corrected or removed?

Kevin Brown is the author.

But no need to get it corrected or removed since it seems
correct so far as I can tell.

Tom Clarke

P.S.

I found a copy of the whois entry on sci.math

Registrant:
MathPages (MATHPAGES-DOM)
1605 W JAMES LN # I-7
KENT, WA 98032-4351
US

Domain Name: MATHPAGES.COM

Administrative Contact:
Brown, Kevin (KB11700)
MathPages
6014 S 238TH PL APT D101
KENT, WA 98032-3771
US
(253) 854-2063 fax: 999 999 9999
Technical Contact:
Hostmaster, Support (SH12005)

P.O.Box 152212
Irving, TX 75015-2212
US
1-800-483-4678 fax: 123 123 1234

Record expires on 08-Aug-2012.
Record created on 14-Oct-2002.
Database last updated on 22-Jul-2003 10:53:39 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS05A.WEBHOSTING-VERIZON.NET 209.238.3.50
NS05B.WEBHOSTING-VERIZON.NET 209.238.3.51




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

http://www.enc.org/resources/records...002128,00.shtm ,
http://mathforum.com/library/view/5157.html

Kevin Brown.

However, interestingly in my search program it is called a "compilation of
postings".

Harald

Minor Crank wrote in message
news:UdmVa.3764$o%2.3254@sccrnsc02...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

snip venom

I was very curious a while back about the authorship of the mathpages, and
accidentally came across evidence pointing to the identity of another
member
of the author's family.

Who cares about the author's family?

The evidence that I have shows definitively that the mathpages weren't
authored by Stephen.

I accept Stephen's word that he didn't author the slime. Now that he's seen
fit to state it clearly.

No, I'm afraid I can't let you know the nature of this
evidence. The author is a very private person, and I wish to respect his
privacy.

A "secret" author! How Relativist!

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

FrediFizzx wrote in message
...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
|
| Stephen Speicher wrote in message
| ...
| Except for the "Who said this ..." series I no longer read or
| post to this group. However, it has been brought to my attention
| that since my departure more than two months ago, Barry Mingst
| (aka greywolf42) has been claiming that I am the author of the
| web site
|
| http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm
|
| Upon searching google.com I indeed found a dozen or so postings
| in which Mingst made claims such as
|
| "This site is the work of Stephen Speicher."
|
| "Even the author (Speicher) ..."
|
| "The problem is that the link is Steven[sic] Speicher's
| derivation ..."
|
| For the record, that site is not my "work," nor am I "the author"
| of that site, nor does that site contain my "derivation." In
| fact, apart from admiring the content of a great deal of the
| mathpages.com web site, I am not connected with that site in any
| way. Barry Mingst fabricated this story out of whole cloth, just
| as he fabricates many stories about historical figures in
| physics. Mingst is a true pathological case whose word cannot be
| trusted.
|
| After refusing for months to identify whether he was the author of that
| slime site (since February -- LONG before Stephen's "avoidance" of
| sci.physics.relativity) -- and despite my repeated explicit requests --
| Stephen claims that I "fabricated this story out of whole cloth."
|
| Now, Stephen claims that he found a "dozen or so" postings with this
claim.
| But the large majority of the "dozen or so posts" were made before
Stephen
| "left" the group. So he has no reason to complain. Indeed, most were
made
| directly to Stephen, PLEADING for him to admit or deny authorship. In
| threads that Stephen thereafter abandoned.
|
|
| So now my question to Stephen (and the other DHR's who proffer the site
as
| valid -- without ever defending it) is -- why do you support this slime
| site, when you know it's false allegation, deliberate distortion and
| outright lies?
|
| And -- more important -- WHO IS the author of this slime, and how do we
get
| it corrected or removed?

A simple Whois search will most likely give you a lead.

But only who POSTED the site. Not to who wrote it.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...

Stephen Speicher wrote in message
...
Except for the "Who said this ..." series I no longer read or
post to this group. However, it has been brought to my attention
that since my departure more than two months ago, Barry Mingst
(aka greywolf42) has been claiming that I am the author of the
web site

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm

Upon searching google.com I indeed found a dozen or so postings
in which Mingst made claims such as

"This site is the work of Stephen Speicher."

"Even the author (Speicher) ..."

"The problem is that the link is Steven[sic] Speicher's
derivation ..."

For the record, that site is not my "work," nor am I "the author"
of that site, nor does that site contain my "derivation." In
fact, apart from admiring the content of a great deal of the
mathpages.com web site, I am not connected with that site in any
way. Barry Mingst fabricated this story out of whole cloth, just
as he fabricates many stories about historical figures in
physics. Mingst is a true pathological case whose word cannot be
trusted.

After refusing for months to identify whether he was the author of that
slime site (since February -- LONG before Stephen's "avoidance" of
sci.physics.relativity) -- and despite my repeated explicit requests --
Stephen claims that I "fabricated this story out of whole cloth."

You did, and no smokescreen will make it go away.

#9 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#8 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#7 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#6 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#5 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#4 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#3 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#2 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#1 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m

[snipped 15kb smokescreen #9]

Dirk Vdm

Thomas Clarke wrote in message
news:c8d38296e70f5febde333347f44a801f.128340@mygat e.mailgate.org...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
| Stephen Speicher wrote in message
| For the record, that site is not my "work," nor am I "the author"
| of that site,

| And -- more important -- WHO IS the author of this slime,
| and how do we get
| it corrected or removed?

Kevin Brown is the author.

But no need to get it corrected or removed since it seems
correct so far as I can tell.

The author expressly states that he worked from a typo-ridden summation of a
paper the typoist claimed was "not at all clear" to him. The author also
explicitly notes that "it's difficult to guess precisely what Gerber had in
mind." Nonetheless, the author is quite willing to forge ahead and slam a
paper that he doesn't have and hasn't read -- based on an admittedly flawed
critique written by someone who admitted they couldn't follow what Gerber
was doing!

You really consider this a valid scientific critique?


P.S.

I found a copy of the whois entry on sci.math

Registrant:
MathPages (MATHPAGES-DOM)
1605 W JAMES LN # I-7
KENT, WA 98032-4351
US

Domain Name: MATHPAGES.COM

Administrative Contact:
Brown, Kevin (KB11700)
MathPages
6014 S 238TH PL APT D101
KENT, WA 98032-3771
US
(253) 854-2063 fax: 999 999 9999
Technical Contact:
Hostmaster, Support (SH12005)

P.O.Box 152212
Irving, TX 75015-2212
US
1-800-483-4678 fax: 123 123 1234

Record expires on 08-Aug-2012.
Record created on 14-Oct-2002.
Database last updated on 22-Jul-2003 10:53:39 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS05A.WEBHOSTING-VERIZON.NET 209.238.3.50
NS05B.WEBHOSTING-VERIZON.NET 209.238.3.51

Thanks

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Dirk Van de moortel wrote in
message ...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

Stephen Speicher wrote in message
...
Except for the "Who said this ..." series I no longer read or
post to this group. However, it has been brought to my attention
that since my departure more than two months ago, Barry Mingst
(aka greywolf42) has been claiming that I am the author of the
web site

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm

Upon searching google.com I indeed found a dozen or so postings
in which Mingst made claims such as

"This site is the work of Stephen Speicher."

"Even the author (Speicher) ..."

"The problem is that the link is Steven[sic] Speicher's
derivation ..."

For the record, that site is not my "work," nor am I "the author"
of that site, nor does that site contain my "derivation." In
fact, apart from admiring the content of a great deal of the
mathpages.com web site, I am not connected with that site in any
way. Barry Mingst fabricated this story out of whole cloth, just
as he fabricates many stories about historical figures in
physics. Mingst is a true pathological case whose word cannot be
trusted.

After refusing for months to identify whether he was the author of that
slime site (since February -- LONG before Stephen's "avoidance" of
sci.physics.relativity) -- and despite my repeated explicit requests --
Stephen claims that I "fabricated this story out of whole cloth."

You did, and no smokescreen will make it go away.

#9
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#8
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#7
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#6
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#5
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#4
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#3
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#2
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m
#1
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...upernews.co m

[snipped 15kb smokescreen #9]


Hello and goodbye, coward. Still not willing to address any physics?

Your pathetic attempts at diversion never did fool anyone.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas