| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:15 am Post subject: #12 Archimedes Plutonium on front cover of Argus Leader news |
 |
|
Well, it is out there, Archimedes Plutonium on the front page and full
feature news article in the
South Dakota Argus Leader. I asked the writer if I could proofread the
story before published but he
told it was against policy. I asked because I know the writer is not a
scientist himself and a story
on a scientist would be laden with error. Journalists who do not have
a scientific background are prone
to many mistakes of fact.
A King or a Crackpot? Nestor Ramos nramos@argusleader.com On the ...
Archimedes Plutonium, and he calls himself the King of All
Science. ... Certainly, this much is true: Archimedes Plutonium is not
a nobody. ...
m.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080629/VOICES/
806290324/1161/CUSTOMER06&template=wapart - 16k - 16 hours ago -
Cached - Similar pages - Note this
It is a shame that in journalism schools across the world they do not
demand a course in "logic"
in order to graduate and is to blame for what I feel is modern day
deterioration of journalism quality.
Do not get me wrong, I rather have this story "out there" laden with
error, rather than not have a
story.
This story of me follows from my recent letter to the editor of Argus
Leader pointing out the illogic
of building a oil refinery in South Dakota, where it wastes 29,000
barrels of oil each and every
day that it produces 400,000 barrels of oil when if the refinery were
built in Canada near the
tar-sands and railroad haul the finished product into the USA would
not waste 29,000 barrels of
oil. So it is obvious to any future reader or present day reader that
the politicians who pushed through
the oil refinery are trying to smear campaign discredit Archimedes
Plutonium, by calling him crackpot
and looking for anything that can label AP in a bad light.
I did the math and physics on TransCanada and Hyperion and Conoco
Phillips plan of piping tar sands
through farm fields and then oil refinery in South Dakota. My math
shows a wasting of 29,000 barrels every
day and many ruined farmfields with needless pipelines. Trouble is
that Governor Mike Rounds has
not done the math. Nor has Senator Thune done the math. They tout how
much money people will make
but do not tell you how much dirty air and water will exist for these
communities. Everyone is expected
to fix Global Warming and to not burn fuel heedlessly. Yet by building
oil refineries far away from the
tar sands wastes up to 10% of all the tar sands oil and accelerates
Global Warming.
To emit into the air 29,000 barrels that never needed to be emitted if
the refineries were built in Canada
next to the tar sands and to cut open thousands of farmers land to lay
needless pipelines is a question
that Governor Rounds and Senator Thune have not addressed.
I have addressed them. I have done the math. And instead of Mr. Rounds
or Mr. Thune doing the math
they unleash newsreporters to make Mr. Archimedes Plutonium look like
a kook.
The first paragraph of the Argus Leader story says I wear a "bee
suit". This is false. I do not own a
bee suit. I never wore a bee suit in my life. I do own mosquito
netting, much like what fisherman
wear when bothered by mosquitos. When I mow in tall grass or work near
woods I wear mosquito
netting over my T-shirt.
Have any of you ever experienced a utility bill in computer error and
it keeps mailing you the same bill,
even though the office said it will stop, and you keep getting the
bill and even penalty notices. Computer
mistakes that frustrate you. Well this is what sloppy journalism does
to people in stories. The newspaper
now has unleashed a falsihood about Archimedes Plutonium, in which
people all over the world will
envision AP wearing a bee-suit, and say to themselves-- what a nut.
That is exactly what the story about AP was designed to illicit from
the reading public. The man who
stood up to Governor Rounds and Senator Thune by telling them it makes
no sense to build oil
refineries in South Dakota because it emits 29,000 barrels more of air
pollution that excerbates Global
Warming.
So they seek their attack dogs on AP by making him look like a nut who
wears a "bee suit" when
in fact I never wore a bee suit.
Politicians do these dirty tricks as they ally themselves with
newsreporters, but I simply asked all along:
Please, Mr. Rounds, please Mr. Thune what numbers do you get when you
figure out the cost of refining
up there in Canada and then railroad hauling versus ruined farmfields
with buried pipelines and refining
in South Dakota.
Instead of making Archimedes Plutonium look like a nut and kook, why
not just give us your math
computations.
Certainly, Mr. Rounds and Mr. Thune expect every South Dakotan and
every Iowan and every Nebraskan
to switch to energy saving light bulbs and to drive less to save on
Global Warming. But when it comes
to really saving on Global Warming, why is Mr. Rounds and Mr. Thune
advocating a oil refinery that will
add 29,000 barrels of oil each and every day into the air, heedlessly.
Do they advocate this because
they want to see some obese Texans fill their pocketbooks with
millions of dollars while South Dakotans
fill their lungs with dirty air and fill their lands with unneeded
pipelines?
So I, as a scientist, did the math, did the computing did the
reporting of the waste. Do I deserve to be
attacked in the newspaper as some sort of nut or kook or crackpot?
The math and physics and science of oil refinery is not debatable, it
is there as simple pure facts. If you
want to increase Global Warming you build the refineries in South
Dakota and you waste 29,000 barrels
a day. You ruin thousands of farmlands. In fact you ruin a
agricultural region where you have a oil refinery.
South Dakota was never meant to have oil refineries, for it never had
any oil. Farming is essential, so
why replace farming for oil refining. Our farming ancestors, if they
could rise from the dead, would certainly
be shaking their heads to see us trading for something unnatural as
oil refineries in a land that belongs
to farming.
What is the next project for Mr. Rounds? Since he wants to bring oil
refineries to land that belongs to
farming, how about bringing Orange groves to Pierre South Dakota.
Growing citrus in South Dakota
makes as much sense as what Mr. Rounds wants oil refining in South
Dakota.
So the Argus Leader has done a huge disfavor to Archimedes Plutonium,
like those utility bills that the
computer endlessly prints out. That can I live down or live up to
correcting the mistake of "bee suit"?
Journalism allows for corrections of errors, but they seldom correct
the damage done. So wherever AP
goes, will people want to know about "bee suits"
The mistake journalism did in New Hampshire was to saddle AP with a
false nickname-- Arky.
So this is a huge problem in journalism, where it saddles innocent
people with falsehoods, and because
of the nature of not being able to correct those errors of the
newspapers, those errors often outlive the
individual.
That is why Internet Publishing may be far better than the old
journalism newspapers, because if it were
adequately set up, I could put a notice on the story that the "bee
suit" is false and they could make it
disappear from the Internet posted Argus Leader story.
A bee suit is very much different from a mosquito jacket worn by
fisherman and which I wear often in
summer time, since I do not want to catch West Nile virus.
So, is this another error that AP now must live down or live up.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:58 am Post subject: #13 mistakes in the Archimedes Plutonium's story by Argus Le |
|
|
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
| Quote: |
The first paragraph of the Argus Leader story says I wear a "bee
suit". This is false. I do not own a
bee suit. I never wore a bee suit in my life. I do own mosquito
netting, much like what fisherman
wear when bothered by mosquitos. When I mow in tall grass or work near
woods I wear mosquito
netting over my T-shirt.
|
Here is the website for this story:
http://m.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080629/VOICES/806290324/1161/CUSTOMER06&template=wapart
Now the reason that is such a offensive journalistic mistake is that I
can anticipate what will happen
with that mistake for Wikipedia when they get a hold of it and with
their corps of hatemongers. They
will write a Wikipedia entry showing someone in a bee-suit in the
middle of summer walking in
Vermillion and saying it is Archimedes Plutonium.
So every journalist in the world, should have a code of conduct that
asks "do I have a low opinion"
of the subject they are writing about, and if the answer is yes, then
they have to be especially careful
as to what they write in the story, because their low-opinion usually
surfaces and makes the writer
look bad, not the story subject.
The next blotched error is when he discusses "pi" and then discusses
"e". I never mentioned E = mc^2
in our three conversations for this story. I mentioned lower case "e"
in mathematics which is the number
2.71...... and this is not the same as the "E" for energy in that
equation. I did offer to proofread this story
before it was published and was told that it is against Argus Leader
policy, but then I found out that
many stories from the Argus Leader are give to the subjects to
proofread before print, so apparently there
is an "ambivalent policy at the Argus Leader." So that if a story is
emotionally packed that proofreading
is denied.
The next mistake which I would have caught with a proofread was the
quoting of a dollar value for
my owned real-estate. Now I am rather confused as to why $100,000 was
even mentioned, as it is
easy to walk into any courthouse and find out those numbers. I find it
uncouth that a story about
science even trespasses over into the dollar value of the scientist's
real estate. But worse yet is
that the sum of the value of my real-estate here in this area is
$175,000, not $100,000 for the author
missed adding the Gift Shop. Uncouth because most stories of people
simply do not go into talking
about money values, even though they are publicly available. So why
did the Argus Leader go down this
uncouth avenue? It is because, I suspect, the low opinion of the
writing staff, that they mentioned
so many properties, and with their low opinion, that a nut or crackpot
to their eyes should be a homeless
beggar on some city street and not someone independently wealthy, self
employed since 25 years of
age and can buy and sell real estate in any place in the world and can
live in any place in the world.
So when the Argus Leader or other newspaper does a story on Archimedes
Plutonium, they simply
cannot bear the reality of the situation that I have been self
employed since I graduated from University
and that I was a millionaire five years after leaving University of
Cincinnati. That my intelligence is allows
me to make a living from playing the stock market whereas most people
who graduate from College
spend the rest of their lives working for others. So when a newspaper
reporter wants to write about
how kooky and crackpottish Archimedes Plutonium is, well, they look
for things such as dishwashing
at Dartmouth, rather than the truth-- that I play the stockmarket and
real-estate and am self-employed.
So the Argus Leader can add up my real-estate in Vermillion County
Courthouse and why they quoted
$100,000 instead of the true price I paid of $175,000, tells me that
the low-opinion of the writing staff,
is so low that they just simply fudged the numbers. If the writing
staff at Argus Leader wanted me to
show a bank statement that I owned 17,000 shares of Verizon which
gives a yearly dividend of approx
$30,000. I would have shown them a bank statement, but they would not
wanted to have seen that
because, well, it does not lend to their aim of making AP look like a
kook, a crackpot and whatever.
When a journal writing staff has a low opinion of a subject, it is
pretty hard to write a balanced and
truthful account of the subject.
Now what the Internet does, is provide a counterbalance. In the old
days, the subject had to be
disgruntled and bear the errors. But now, with the Internet, my story
of the errors is as likely
to become even more worldwide known than the original errorfilled
story by the Argus Leader.
So that Europeans reading the errorfilled Argus Leader are just as
likely to read this news thread
by me, correcting the Argus Leader.
In the old days, the newspaper often rejected followup letters to
stories, but with the Internet,
a newspaper story can have an immediate followup letters where they
cannot reject. And where
I was under a microscope by Argus Leader, now I put the Argus Leader
under a microscope.
Although, I probably will not be able to stave off the pack of
Wikipedia editors with their hate
mongering using "bee suits" in some future Wikipedia article on
Archimedes Plutonium.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:36 am Post subject: #14 when journalism strays from the truth, it no longer is |
|
|
--- quoting the Argus Leader story of Archimedes Plutonium ---
http://m.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080629/VOICES/806290324/1161/CUSTOMER06&template=wapart
On the streets of Vermillion, people call him Archie.
In Meckling, where he lives, children call him Bee Man as he walks
through town in a beekeeper's suit. But he keeps no bees.
And online, where he is internationally famous, mathematicians and
scientists call him a kook, a crank and a nuisance.
--- end quoting ---
Now I want to focus on this opening paragraph, not only because I
never wore a beekeeper's suit, but
I never owned one, and never touched one. I do have many mosquito net
jackets like the ones
fishermen wear in the wilds and creeks and streams to keep the
mosquitos at bay. I wear a mosquito
jacket over a T-shirt whenever I anticipate swarms while mowing or
working near wooded areas.
There is a family with children in Meckling and asked them today
whether they talked with the newsreporter
from Argus Leader, and they told me they were "not present" when the
Argus Leader newsman
talked with their parent. So maybe the news reporter got it mixed up,
and that he had talked with
some children in Vermillion.
Or, maybe the reporter simply does not know the difference between a
bee-suit and a mosquito
jacket.
Anyway, the compounding of errors of fact in the first paragraph is
rather ridiculuous. Are journalists
these days vying for how many bad mistakes they can make in the first
paragraph of a story of a
scientist?
It is easy for me to explain why the error filled story. I wrote a
factual piece as to why an oil refinery
is out of place in South Dakota, and to get back at Archimedes
Plutonium, a story on him was set
up to make me look like some kook who wears a bee-suit in the middle
of summer in Vermillion when
that is a falsehood.
Some people may say, so what. So who cares whether it was kids in
Vermillion or kids in Meckling
or whether the reporter made it all up. Who cares whether it is a bee-
suit or a mosquito jacket. Well
I care because I am a scientist and live by the truth and facts and if
journalism in the USA boils down to painting pictures for ulterior
motives rather than
describing facts and information, then the USA has very lousy
journalism.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Tonico
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:59 am Post subject: Re: #14 when journalism strays from the truth, it no longer |
|
|
On Jun 30, 8:36 am, plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
--- quoting the Argus Leader story of Archimedes Plutonium ---
http://m.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080629/VOICES/8....
On the streets of Vermillion, people call him Archie.
In Meckling, where he lives, children call him Bee Man as he walks
through town in a beekeeper's suit. But he keeps no bees.
And online, where he is internationally famous, mathematicians and
scientists call him a kook, a crank and a nuisance.
--- end quoting ---
Now I want to focus on this opening paragraph, not only because I
never wore a beekeeper's suit, but
I never owned one, and never touched one. I do have many mosquito net
jackets like the ones
fishermen wear in the wilds and creeks and streams to keep the
mosquitos at bay. I wear a mosquito
jacket over a T-shirt whenever I anticipate swarms while mowing or
working near wooded areas.
*************************************************************** |
Well, well: you've finally attained fame, though not glory...yet.
And who cares what the children say? They see mosquito net jackets,
and the lil' bastards think it is a beekeeper suit. They're stupid!
Anyway, as they say: you're now internationally famous!
Regards
Tonio
Ps Save one autograph for me, please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:07 am Post subject: #15 what is the journalistic practice of letting in other vo |
|
|
There must be some guidelines as to giving voice to others in a story
of a scientist and his theory.
--- quoting Argus Leader ---
http://m.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080629/VOICES/806290324/1161/CUSTOMER06&template=wapart
"He has more interest in mathematics and physics than the average
person, certainly, and so he's picked up some understanding in math
and physics (and a lot of misunderstanding)," said Jesse Hughes, an
adjunct professor of philosophy at Bennett College and Salem State
College in Arlington, Mass., in an e-mail.
Hughes, a long-time contributor to many of the same Usenet newsgroup
that Plutonium frequents, called Plutonium's theory "mind-bogglingly
silly," and dubbed him the "reigning king of Usenet cranks."
--- end quoting ---
I have to ask a question about journalism as it brings together people
of opposite views, yet the session is really about one idea-- Atom
Totality Theory.
I have no quick answers of the appropriateness of bringing in others
in a discussion over one idea.
Is it fair to bring in Jesse Hughes who knows little to none of
physics
on a discussion story of the Atom Totality? Is it fair to bring him
into this
story when he cannot even understand the mathematics I have done
such as the childish question here given by Jesse Hughes in this 2007
post,
where he is on another cloud.
--- quoting an old Jesse Hughs post ---
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:12:43 -0400
Local: Thurs, Oct 18 2007 8:12 pm
Subject: Re: #146 proof of the Infinitude of Twin Primes in one
paragraph ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for
students of age 6 onwards"
Archimedes Plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> writes:
| Quote: |
So we string them together as per the above demand:
........9999999997...99999999153
And with our other demand that if finite set then the above becomes
this number
......0000000.....9999999997......9999999999153
The nice thing about infinity is that there are no barriers to stringing
one infinite to another infinite and their final end result is
infinite.
|
Isn't ....888888....999999 longer than ....99999? After all, the
former has the same number of 9s as the latter, but it has an infinite
number of 8s, too.
But if ....888888....999999 is longer than ....999999, then it must be
a larger number than ....999999.
Where did I go wrong?
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"My baby don't allow me in the kitchen
and I've come to love her decision."
-- Bad Livers
--- end quoting old post ---
So it is fair or useful in a journal story of Archimedes Plutonium
with his
new theory that the Universe is not the Big Bang but the Atom
Totality.
Is it fair to cite a hatemonger of Archimedes Plutonium who is in
philosophy
and who has never himself offered any new big ideas in science as far
as I know.
In fact, I corrected Euclid's Infinitude of Primes proof and forced
Wikipedia to tear down their botched attempt. Now most philosophers
have to become acquinted and be able to do the Euclid Infinitude of
Primes proof. So, Archimedes Plutonium, not Jesse Hughes was able
to spot the error of Euclid's proof as given by dozens of math
professors in their books. What I am saying here, is that Jesse is so
far gone as a hatemonger, that he cannot see it in himself to give me
credit for correcting a 2,000 year old proof, something that Jesse
was never able to do.
So it is fair, journalistically, to fish for someone who hates the
guts of
another and then give him ample space in the story?
Surely there must be some guidelines in journalism saying who and who
is not
appropriate to give space to a scientist and his idea.
I would think that in journalism, that the proper reference would be
Alain
Aspect since the Atom Totality implies the Bell Inequality
Superdeterminism.
Or William Tifft whose quantized galaxy speeds dovetails with an Atom
Totality.
Or Mr. Luminet of France whose Universe is a dodecahedron which
dovetails with an Atom Totality.
So that a Argus Leader story on Archimedes Plutonium should not have
some sour nonachieving philosopher who knows no physics and who
simply hates the guts of AP. But that the Argus Leader should have
invited responses from Mr. Aspect, Mr. Tifft or Mr. Luminet.
I can see where "other voices" should be let into a story if the other
voice draws
specific attention to that theory, but to let in someone who simply
says " I hate
his guts and everything he does and thinks is worthless" is bad
journalism.
So I think the journalism trade has some guidelines as to who should
be
invited to comment when doing a story on a scientist in physics. Do we
let in hatemongers who know no physics?
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Active Member
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:31 am Post subject: Re: #12 Archimedes Plutonium on front cover of Argus Leader |
|
|
#12 anagram of "Archimedes Plutonium"
"Old-time U.S. Urine Champ"
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote in message news:29badbb2-c882-4117- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Active Member
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:00 am Post subject: Re: #13 mistakes in the Archimedes Plutonium's story by Argu |
|
|
#13 Anagram of "Archimedes Plutonium"
"Mister Eunuch Diploma" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:37 pm Post subject: #16 egregious newspaper reporter error "homemade cape"?; new |
|
|
Now let me point out a final egregious error by the Argus Leader, and
although there are other mistakes,
I am tired of pointing out errors and will call it quits with this
one.
This error is egregious because it is a nuisance when a newsreporter
repeats an error by previous
newsreporters in New Hampshire where the news reporter wants to make
up facts that are false
just to further his painting of Archimedes Plutonium as "odd" rather
than let the true facts be
known. Egregious error because like a annoying computer utility bill
that keeps showing up in
your mailbox while the utility company never fixes the repeat billing.
I am speaking of the last lines in the story where a clothing
description of Archimedes Plutonium
is given when he lived in New Hampshire. It is true I stensiled
numbers and symbols on some of my
shirts and coats. I accept that. And it is true I rode around on a
bicycle, forgoing cars while
living in New Hampshire. But it is not true that I wore a "homemade
cape". Wearing of a cape is
really strange and odd and that is probably the reason that bad and
lousy reporters wanted to
demonize Archimedes Plutonium with that picture.
There was one time in my life that I wore a cape, and that was on a
Demonstration day when I
made myself a costume to parade in a Demonstration.
The false and fairy tale by newsreporters in New Hampshire and now
here in South Dakota by the
Argus Leader in repeating that falsehood of wearing a cape probably
was started because of my
method of wearing a coat. On a bicycle or walking around and it is not
cold, instead of slinging
the coat under my arm, I merely buttoned the coat on the last snap-
button around my neck. So the
coat from a distance may look like a cape to a observer who is fishing
to make Archimedes Plutonium
look bad. To try to make a person look like he is nuts by some item of
clothing of a coat slung around
his back and neck and instead of saying "he is wearing his coat on his
back" a bad reporter who
wants to make me out as a kook would not say "wearing a coat" but some
a falsehood and lie
"wearing a homemade cape".
I am fascinated by the science of psychology of the human behaviour of
"heckling." What is it in
humans that some love to heckle others? What is it in humans that
heckling is part of their
psyche? Does heckling provide some positive energy to those who commit
to heckling? In their
mockery of others, does the heckling lift those who practice it? To
me, heckling is a mild form of
attacking another person, where the next gradation of attacking is
actual physical contact and
physical violence. So when a newsreporter in a book says that
Archimedes Plutonium wears
homemade capes, to me is more than a lie, but a outright attack to
paint me as kookish and
crazy. And why the Argus Leader continues a lie by newsreporters of
New Hampshire with the
sticking of that same lie into this South Dakota news reporting.
I have never worn capes in my life, except for the one time I wore a
costume. To call a coat draped
over my back as a cape is a lie and a lie designed by the newsreporter
to make Archimedes Plutonium
look bad and weird.
It is people and newsreporters with "little minds" who seek to exploit
some minute trivia that is false
but which is designed to paint a image of "ghoulish or kookish or
crackpottish image" that is disturbing
as a newsreporter. It reflects more on the bad attitude and state of
mind of the newsreporter that they
paint a false image of their subject.
Especially bad as Wikipedia with their troops and corps of
hatemongering editors read through the
Argus Leader and then pick up on the "homemade cape" lie, because they
are a pack of hecklers
who can never understand a single post where I do physics or Maxwell
Equations but instantly
understand that "homemade cape" is a hecklers dream come true.
So this is modern day newspaper journalism at is utmost worst. Where
the slinging of a coat
over my back, rather than carry it under my arm, is made out to be a
"homemade cape". Egregious
because the wearing of a cape in modern day USA is kookish.
As I said earlier, I offered to proofread the Argus Leader story
before printing, but was told that it
is against their policy. But I later found out that proofreading is a
come courtesy to most every one
of the Argus Leader stories. So why am I singled out as not able to
proofread. For I surely would
have bulked against the inclusion of a New Hampshire mistake --
"homemade cape" into a repeating
of that mistake.
One of the generals in the Civil War, I think it was Sherman or it may
have been Grant commented that
one of his soldiers can go through the war under horrific conditions
and serve honorably and then
die, all to have a newspaper reporter misspell his entire name and end
up losing his real name due
to the interface of that newsreporter. It is for this reason that
science biographies are special, because
scientists know how lousy the news reporting industry is concerning
facts. That virtually every story
of a person has egregious errors and in the old days there was no real
means of correcting those
errors. So that if Archimedes Plutonium had lived in the 19th century,
we would likely read that
he wore a homemade cape and believe the lie.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Marshall
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:58 pm Post subject: Re: #15 what is the journalistic practice of letting in othe |
|
|
| Quote: |
Is it fair to bring in Jesse Hughes who knows little to none of
physics on a discussion story of the Atom Totality?
|
I have yet to find a thread that isn't improved by the
presence of Jesse Hughes.
Marshall |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:15 pm Post subject: #17 fascinated by hecklers and their psychological imbalance |
|
|
Active Member wrote:
| Quote: |
#14 "Archimedes Plutonium" anagram -
"Mr. Meticulous Pinhead"
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20f382cc-c8ef-40f8-81f6-c83bbc3b51d0@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
--- quoting the Argus Leader story of Archimedes Plutonium ---
|
The above is Dave Norton, so, heckler, are you related to Jim Norton
in this killfile list below:
(snipped for brevity)
=
= Jim Norton (jimn469897@aol.com)
=
= Dave Norton 29 June 2008
=
Many posters to the Internet are childish and immature and who are
simply hatemongers, too
dumb to realize the Internet is a "permanent record" and their very
bad behaviour is recorded
longer than them.
What I am going to propose is that we have Universities and Colleges
that award degrees for
the "earning of study of science" and if a person becomes a worthless
heckler on the Internet
that his degree be nullified due to the bad behaviour displayed with
his posts to the science
newsgroups. Especially bad posts hiding behind psuedonames such as
Uncle Al, so that their
college degree in science becomes null and void due to their posting
behaviour.
When criminals go to jail we strip them of their voting rights. When
college graduates enter
the Internet and display recurring bad behaviour that is antithetical
of having earned a
college degree, then we should strip them of their college degree. So
set up a Internet
newsgroup of College degree Stripping Accredidation.
Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: Re: #15 what is the journalistic practice of letting in othe |
|
|
Marshall wrote:
| Quote: |
Is it fair to bring in Jesse Hughes who knows little to none of
physics on a discussion story of the Atom Totality?
I have yet to find a thread that isn't improved by the
presence of Jesse Hughes.
Marshall
|
He is mostly a sour old man, who was never able to give any new idea
to the intellectual community. This sourness then takes its toll on
those
who do set forth and offer new ideas. It is called envy.
Jesse is in philosophy, not physics not math and is totally incapable
of passing
judgement on any of my new ideas. And for him to occupy a news story
of
Archimedes Plutonium and Atom Totality is an injustice to me.
As a philosopher he must have trespassed on the Euclid Infinitude of
Primes proof
and as a professor of philosophy is required to be able to do and
understand that proof.
I corrected that proof for which a list of prominent mathematicians
were not able to
recognize that they could not even do a valid Euclid Infinitude of
Primes proof.
Jesse should have congratulated me for recognizing the blunder and
giving a true
and valid Euclid IP. Instead, in his sourness, he dismisses everything
I say and
everything I do.
He is a sour and bitter academician and in my estimation should not
even be
in education because his sourness rubs off. When a person fails to
even see or
recognize the achievements of others -- my correction of Euclid's
Infinitude of Primes
Proof -- then they do not belong in education nor science. When they
hate someone
so much that they fail to recognize achievement, then they should not
be here.
If you want to sling arrows on the Internet and in newspaper print,
then expect a volley
coming in the other direction.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
porky_pig_jr@my-deja.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: Re: #13 mistakes in the Archimedes Plutonium's story by Argu |
|
|
On Jun 30, 12:58 am, plutonium.ar
Hey, it's a very nice article. Don't understand why you're so upset.
By the way, if you *do* wear bee suit, would you mind to post the
picture of you in that suit? I think you'll look awfully cute, dressed
in bee suit. If I were a bee, I couldn't resist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Active Member
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: Re: #14 when journalism strays from the truth, it no longer |
|
|
#14 "Archimedes Plutonium" anagram -
"Mr. Meticulous Pinhead"
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20f382cc-c8ef-40f8-81f6-c83bbc3b51d0@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
--- quoting the Argus Leader story of Archimedes Plutonium ---
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Active Member
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:38 pm Post subject: Re: #15 what is the journalistic practice of letting in othe |
|
|
#15 "Archimedes Plutonium" anagram -
"I am rectum unpolished"
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1568a29-6582-46f4-8183-d0c342ae87a9@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> There must be some guidelines as to giving voice to others in a story |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cwatters
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:52 pm Post subject: Re: #12 Archimedes Plutonium on front cover of Argus Leader |
|
|
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:29badbb2-c882-4117-b826-35a1205f59c3@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Well, it is out there, Archimedes Plutonium on the front page and full
feature news article in the South Dakota Argus Leader.
|
Never heard of it.
I was on the cover of Wired magazine once - it was equally uncomplimentary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
125 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
