> > Wormley could not even tell you how many photons > comprise a gamma ray > burst, yet he agrees with some Captain Kangaroo > researchers > publication of handling a single photon.
He has his own personal views of physics and mathematics, just like you do; why is it o.k for you to disagree with the standard theories, but not o.k., for wormley to do so?
> There are many, and most people who do physics are > stigmatized by > "what is published is 100% true"
I'm willing to bet good money that you just made this up, and you have no data to support this claim--no surprise, as most of your statements fall in the category of "strong opinion", and have nothing solid to support them.
> A more healthy attitude towards published material is > that 50% is > true ?and the other 50% is hockey puck.
Why? Why not 60-40 , or 80-20?
> Let us vote to decrease the amount of spam posting by > Wormley to the > sci.physics newsboard.
Sure; I agree, if we can vote to decrease _YOUR_ spam posts on physics , anthropology and garbage math topics here in sci.math. Deal?
> He makes blizzards and blizzards of posts, of one > liners linked to > another site.
You do the same, only you do many-liners of garbage.
He does this (probably a computer > program at Iowa State > U.) not for the physics involv > page of sci.physics and to throw the posts of others > onto the later > pages. > So we need a New RULE in the science newsgroup to > prevent poster > hoggs ?from filling up the board, just to throw other > posters to far > flung ?pages. > A rule that in 24 hour periods, a poster cannot have > more than say 3, > or 4 or 5 posts. > So Wormley can consolidate his mountain blizzard of > 100 posts of 1 > liners into just 5 posts. > I have been on Usenet since 1993, and in those 20 > years, I averaged > about 3 posts per day, some days I had maybe 5 others > I had 1. Some > weeks I had 0. When on vacation, I had 0. > We cannot have a poster, with various fake names > submitting 50 or 100 > one liner posts can crowd out other posters who > really have something > new to say about physics. > Maybe the reason sci.math is working so well with New > Google > Newsgroups is because they had already sought for a > moderator or > panel ?of moderators to weed out the abuse, but that > sci.physics has > no ?moderator as of yet. > And if sci.physics does eventually find a moderator > or panel, they > should consider posters like Sam Wormley who fill up > the board with > one liner nonsense, not so much to do physics, but to > bury those he/ > it ?despises. > AP >
Why are you posting here on SCI.MATH on issues that only concern SCI.PHYSICS? Do sci.physics posts belong in sci.math?
As usual, you come off as a disingenuous , self-serving hypocrite.