Trying this again ... Information ...

[oxmixmudd]

As I've remarked scores of times here on TWeb, I can always count on old O-Mudd to take my posts in their worst possible way. Here, I am being "pompous" ... "as if I were some sort of world renouned [sic] expert" engaged in "theatrics". That's a trifecta from ol' O-Mudd!

The ideas that I have will be out in due time. I'm asking for QUESTIONS to see if there is something beyond what I've considered. No "theatrics" - just more blind, rabid hatred from you.

As for "world renowned expert" -- no, definitely not "world renowned",
but I certainly do know/understand the topic well beyond the 'average'.

As do I Jorge. 'above average' does not lend itself to the way you are approaching this issue. Here is what would be more in line with some sort of humility:

"I've been working on a book on Information theory and believe I have some new things to offer. However, I would like a discussion of some of my ideas with those of you here to see if my ideas actually have merit, to put them up to a public challenge to test them. The first idea I think perhaps pushes beyond what has already been done is <Jorge gives basic summary here>. I look forward to your comments and contributions."

As I just finished posting to Sparko, OF COURSE I devote a large amount of time and effort to answering that question. It would be odd if I didn't. You'll see that answer soon enough.

Do you have any other questions - questions that perhaps I did not consider?

That is infantile Jorge. How in the world to you expect to get 'questions you did not consider' when you haven't even discussed anything meaningful as it relates to what you think you have considered!

This sort of thing is basically just a narcissistic game on your part Jorge. Attention whoring as it were. "I have a great new idea, and I might talk to you about it if you can guess a meaningful question about it" Then, assuming people are stupid enough to participate, you get off on how brilliant you are as you tell everyone any questions they have either are irrelevant or stupid. No one here is going to buy into that sort of charade Jorge. And if you have anything legit, you won't need this sort of a game to stir up interest in it.

Nonsense. Besides, you wouldn't know a "fact" if it bit you on the rump. A while back I even posted an article by a specialist in the field that stated many of the same things I wrote in my article (with more details and references). But yeah, I know -- none of those were "facts" for you. Gee, I wonder why?

Jorge

There was nothing in that article that showed that the fact in my sig has been overturned scientifically, that volcanic events can produce the sorts of pressures required to generate shatter cones and shocked quartz. Further, IF such a discovery HAD been made, we'd have seen it in Nature or Science - it would have a major impact on a LOT of research. IT would be 'ground-breaking' in fact


Jim

[Sparko]

Believe it or not, I actually spent a large amount of time and effort answering that question.

Strange, huh?

Seriously, that question is answered in the work - rest assured.

BTW, what do YOU think information is? Information is a word used
often yet ask anyone to define 'information' and hold on to your seat.

Jorge

You wanted people to ask you questions about Information:

Do you have any questions on the general subject of 'information'?
Specific questions? Mysteries? Confused?

I took you at your word and asked you about information. What is it?

How about an answer instead of a dodge or throwing it back in my face?

[TheLurch]

By the way, over in this other thread, you'd stated i made an error in my post. I asked for an explanation of my error, but you haven't provided one. My question: what did i get wrong?

[Roy]

You wanted people to ask you questions about Information:

I took you at your word and asked you about information. What is it?

How about an answer instead of a dodge or throwing it back in my face?

Jorge only asked for questions. Nowhere did he say he would answer them.

[One Bad Pig]

I've been away for a while so let me ask, does the originator of a thread still have
the authority to boot a worthless piece of garbage off the thread?

If so, I am hereby officially using my size 11 boot to drop-kick Beagle Boy into the next county.

Goodbye, Beagle Boy. ........................ and don't come back.

Jorge

You can kick people out, but it needs to be done politely.

I'm convinced that you only come here because you love swapping insults. Your threads have always contained far more heat than light.

[Leonhard]

Looks like Jorge lost again.

[Sparko]

Information is stuff that informs you.

[Roy]

Information is stuff that informs you.

Not in this thread...

[rogue06]

You can kick people out, but it needs to be done politely.

I'm convinced that you only come here because you love swapping insults. Your threads have always contained far more heat than light.

As I noted previously:

On multiple occasions Jorge has acknowledged that his primary reason for posting is to "rattle cages" or what everyone else would describes as trolling

I'm already there, I'm just not ready to post it here on TWeb. Soon enough ...

Believe it or not, this place is mostly for my entertainment. I get to rattle a few cages and then watch as the 'monkeys' screech.

Lastly - and I've stated this before - I regard this place mostly as amusement. I come here, rattle the cages, and then stand back to listen to the shrieking and howling. It's quite funny, actually.

Okay, you may now resume your howling.

It is best to keep that in mind when engaging with him.


Truth be told, I don't ignore them totally. Just like rattling a stick across the bars of the monkey cages to watch them go ape-wild, I cannot help myself from tormenting Santa and Tiggy every now and then. I will have to answer to the Almighty for that 'wicked' deed, I know.

Jorge

[Jorge]

As do I Jorge. 'above average' does not lend itself to the way you are approaching this issue. Here is what would be more in line with some sort of humility:

"I've been working on a book on Information theory and believe I have some new things to offer. However, I would like a discussion of some of my ideas with those of you here to see if my ideas actually have merit, to put them up to a public challenge to test them. The first idea I think perhaps pushes beyond what has already been done is <Jorge gives basic summary here>. I look forward to your comments and contributions."



That is infantile Jorge. How in the world to you expect to get 'questions you did not consider' when you haven't even discussed anything meaningful as it relates to what you think you have considered!

This sort of thing is basically just a narcissistic game on your part Jorge. Attention whoring as it were. "I have a great new idea, and I might talk to you about it if you can guess a meaningful question about it" Then, assuming people are stupid enough to participate, you get off on how brilliant you are as you tell everyone any questions they have either are irrelevant or stupid. No one here is going to buy into that sort of charade Jorge. And if you have anything legit, you won't need this sort of a game to stir up interest in it.





There was nothing in that article that showed that the fact in my sig has been overturned scientifically, that volcanic events can produce the sorts of pressures required to generate shatter cones and shocked quartz. Further, IF such a discovery HAD been made, we'd have seen it in Nature or Science - it would have a major impact on a LOT of research. IT would be 'ground-breaking' in fact

Jim

WOW!

On that last (highlighted) part, you truly are one of the many mindless twits roaming our streets. When we tried to publish our work on information theory at Springer, they refused to do so because it was "tainted with Creationism". Now you suggest that anti-Establishment findings would have been seen at Nature or Science. Are you out of your freaking mind?!?!? You must be stupid, stoooooooopid or intellectually dishonest -- there can be no other options.

Jorge

[Kbertsche]

WOW!

On that last (highlighted) part, you truly are one of the many mindless twits roaming our streets. When we tried to publish our work on information theory at Springer, they refused to do so because it was "tainted with Creationism". Now you suggest that anti-Establishment findings would have been seen at Nature or Science. Are you out of your freaking mind?!?!? You must be stupid, stoooooooopid or intellectually dishonest -- there can be no other options.

Jorge

Jorge, as you should know, lots of anti-establishment findings get published in Nature and Science. It's always an uphill battle, but with enough persistence, it can be done. It must be kept somewhat difficult to help weed out the bogus claims.

One example: the "cold fusion" claims of Pons and Fleischmann were submitted to one of these journals (Nature, I believe). The reviewers saw problems and asked for further information and clarification. The authors claimed that they were too busy to respond to the questions, and published in the newspapers instead. The claims turned out to be bogus.

[rogue06]

Jorge, as you should know, lots of anti-establishment findings get published in Nature and Science. It's always an uphill battle, but with enough persistence, it can be done. It must be kept somewhat difficult to help weed out the bogus claims.

One example: the "cold fusion" claims of Pons and Fleischmann were submitted to one of these journals (Nature, I believe). The reviewers saw problems and asked for further information and clarification. The authors claimed that they were too busy to respond to the questions, and published in the newspapers instead. The claims turned out to be bogus.

Nature was approached with the so-called Archaeoraptor but turned it down because of numerous problems and it ended up getting published by a popular magazine thanks to the efforts of an over-enthusiastic art editor eager to scoop the competition

[Roy]

Nature was approached with the so-called Archaeoraptor but turned it down because of numerous problems and it ended up getting published by a popular magazine thanks to the efforts of an over-enthusiastic art editor eager to scoop the competition

An over-enthusiastic art editor? I have been assured by an extremely unreliable source that it was reviewed by a dozen PhDs before publication.

[oxmixmudd]

WOW!

On that last (highlighted) part, you truly are one of the many mindless twits roaming our streets. When we tried to publish our work on information theory at Springer, they refused to do so because it was "tainted with Creationism". Now you suggest that anti-Establishment findings would have been seen at Nature or Science. Are you out of your freaking mind?!?!? You must be stupid, stoooooooopid or intellectually dishonest -- there can be no other options.

Jorge

That is simply not a reality Jorge. And the fact your work was rejected not even evidence for your complaint. And further, it would appear you have forgotten or are not aware of the fact that the idea the earth has been bombarded relatively recently and frequently was ITSELF an anti-establishment hypothesis which required a lot of hard work and clear evidence to establish.

Clear evidence shocked quartz and shatter cones can be produced by volcanic events would be conformant with that previous view, and we are not so far from it that such a discovery could face any real resistance, provided the evidence was sound.

Jim

[Sea of red]

For some reason the Aerosmith song 'Same Old Song and Dance' goes through my head reading this.