tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post8634468880512694213..comments2023-05-14T05:58:07.794-07:00Comments on Languedoc Diary: A neutral venue: For David Springer to "get down in the mud"Alan Foxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-37264852491589473362007-06-02T11:55:00.000-07:002007-06-02T11:55:00.000-07:00Larry said Voice could have pointed out this "up-t...Larry said<BR/><I> Voice could have pointed out this "up-to-date information" in a polite way. </I><BR/><BR/>Have you ever been polite anywhere?<BR/><BR/><I> I am one of the few truly sane people around here. </I><BR/><BR/>You are sane. The rest of the world is crazy.<BR/><BR/><I> Voice is gossiping here about my private life </I><BR/><BR/>Saying that your father is a physicist is gossip? You <B>are</B> sensitive.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00590136448950817620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-79453342881834555442007-06-01T18:02:00.000-07:002007-06-01T18:02:00.000-07:00Alan Fox said,>>>>> It's good advice, Larry. I hav...Alan Fox said,<BR/>>>>>> It's good advice, Larry. I have read "A Brief History of Time" a few times but googling Hawking radiation just now was an interesting diversion. There is so much up-to-date information on the net if you wish to look. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/>No, it was not good advice. Voice could have pointed out this "up-to-date information" in a polite way.<BR/><BR/>I didn't choose this topic -- Blipey did -- and I responded to the best of my ability. <BR/><BR/>>>>>> I don't wish to comment on his mental state as I have no expertise and my only knowledge of Larry is what has appeared in the blogosphere over the last couple of years. <<<<<<BR/><BR/>I am one of the few truly sane people around here. <BR/><BR/>Voice is gossiping here about my private life because I won't allow such gossip on my blog. That is pretty sleazy of Voice. <BR/><BR/>Alan, what do you want to do with your posts on the member list at the ANCB website? I would appreciate it if you would delete them because that list is intended only for members.Larry Fafarmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01840916980486608228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-32929041265804471012007-06-01T12:20:00.000-07:002007-06-01T12:20:00.000-07:00For all I know, that could be stronger than nuclea...<I> For all I know, that could be stronger than nuclear forces. </I><BR/><BR/>The operative words are "For all I know".<BR/><BR/><I> Voice simply does not know how to engage in a civil conversation</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps you could set an example for us on your own blog.<BR/><BR/><I>and he always presumes that he is smarter than the next guy.</I><BR/><BR/>I presume, from experience, that you will talk about things you know little about. Your father is a physicist and yet you show you know nothing about the subject.<BR/> <BR/>You know a great deal about history but you rarely talk about it except to cite a bad analogy. Why don't you discuss something you know something about?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00590136448950817620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-91097826002317298802007-06-01T12:15:00.000-07:002007-06-01T12:15:00.000-07:00Larry said:Voice said,>>>>>> Please read something...Larry said:<BR/><BR/><I>Voice said,<BR/>>>>>>> Please read something about this subject before attempting to respond. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/>Voice simply does not know how to engage in a civil conversation and he always presumes that he is smarter than the next guy.</I><BR/><BR/>It's good advice, Larry. I have read "A Brief History of Time" a few times but googling Hawking radiation just now was an interesting diversion. There is so much up-to-date information on the net if you wish to look.Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-12103088016646827132007-06-01T07:53:00.000-07:002007-06-01T07:53:00.000-07:00The Wikipedia article about neutron stars says,The...The Wikipedia article about neutron stars says,<BR/><BR/><I>The neutron star's compactness also gives it very high surface gravity, 2×10 to 11th to 3×10 to 12th times stronger than that of Earth. One measure of such immense gravity is the fact that neutron stars have an escape velocity of around 150,000 km/s, about 1/2 of the speed of light. Matter falling onto the surface of a neutron star would strike the star also at 150,000 km/s, and then be crushed under its own weight into a puddle less than an atom thick.</I><BR/><BR/>For all I know, that could be stronger than nuclear forces. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I think that it is an interesting question.<BR/><BR/>Voice said, <BR/>>>>>>> Please read something about this subject before attempting to respond. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/>Voice simply does not know how to engage in a civil conversation and he always presumes that he is smarter than the next guy.Larry Fafarmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01840916980486608228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-89591161313235800812007-06-01T07:17:00.000-07:002007-06-01T07:17:00.000-07:00Larry said...Also, I might add that though nuclear...Larry said...<BR/><BR/><I>Also, I might add that though nuclear forces are fixed in terms of the force or energy available per unit mass, there is a huge variation in the force or energy available from gravitational fields.</I><BR/><BR/>The energy per unit mass is limited just as the energy from other fields.<BR/><BR/><I>a black hole's gravitational field is so strong that even light cannot escape from it.</I><BR/><BR/>Photons can escape from a black hole through Hawking radiation. In fact, black holes are thought to eventually "evaporate" due to this sort of radiation.<BR/><BR/>Please read something about this subject before attempting to respond.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00590136448950817620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-81675439380832348042007-06-01T07:05:00.000-07:002007-06-01T07:05:00.000-07:00I think you mean "gravitational FIELD" when talkin...I think you mean "gravitational FIELD" when talking about massive bodies.<BR/><BR/>If that is the case, I commend you for not taking up the cause that the gravitational FORCE is the strongest in the universe.blipeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16888921194651901395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-74917923833930571332007-05-31T18:08:00.000-07:002007-05-31T18:08:00.000-07:00Blipey said,>>>>> Two things to consider if you re...Blipey said,<BR/>>>>>> Two things to consider if you really want to discuss this:<BR/><BR/>1. I can counteract the gravitational field of the entire Earth by picking up my dinner plate or by holding a refridgerator magnet over a paperclip. <<<<<<<<BR/> <BR/>I've already answered that point. I said that in the case of the earth, gravity is a fairly strong force, but in the cases of, say, white dwarf stars and black holes, gravity is a very strong force. <BR/> <BR/>Also, I might add that though nuclear forces are fixed in terms of the force or energy available per unit mass, there is a huge variation in the force or energy available from gravitational fields. For example, though light is normally weakly affected by gravity (in accordance with Einstein's predictions, starlight was observed to be slightly deflected by the sun's enormous gravity during a solar eclipse), a black hole's gravitational field is so strong that even light cannot escape from it. <BR/> <BR/>>>>>>> 2. By what criteria or units is it appropriate to compare forces? <<<<<<<BR/> <BR/>I've already answered that, too. I said that in terms of the force per unit mass of the bodies that create the force, gravity is a very weak force. At least one of the bodies -- e.g., the earth -- must be massive in order to create a substantial gravitational force.Larry Fafarmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01840916980486608228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-42927206768771147772007-05-30T14:39:00.000-07:002007-05-30T14:39:00.000-07:00Wow, Larry. You aren't seriously going to take up...Wow, Larry. You aren't seriously going to take up the gravity as the strongest force in the universe argument, are you? After DaveScot struggled valiantly to become the funniest force in the universe on the thread with said title?<BR/><BR/>Two things to consider if you really want to discuss this:<BR/><BR/>1. I can counteract the gravitational field of the entire Earth by picking up my dinner plate or by holding a refridgerator magnet over a paperclip.<BR/><BR/>2. By what criteria or units is it appropriate to compare forces?blipeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16888921194651901395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-68428666345997005312007-05-30T13:19:00.000-07:002007-05-30T13:19:00.000-07:00Voice said:You are a man of your word.Don't be foo...Voice said:<BR/><BR/><I>You are a man of your word.</I><BR/><BR/>Don't be fooled; I have my faults.<BR/><BR/><I>I was not trying to hurt Larry by bringing out his hypocrisy. I am trying to get him to see reality. It is a fool's errand. As far as he is concerned, he is sane and everyone else is crazy.</I><BR/><BR/>I have noticed that you remind him of inconvenient details that sometimes slip his mind. I don't wish to comment on his mental state as I have no expertise and my only knowledge of Larry is what has appeared in the blogosphere over the last couple of years.Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-7373253806060716232007-05-30T11:37:00.000-07:002007-05-30T11:37:00.000-07:00Alan,You are a man of your word.I was not trying t...Alan,<BR/><BR/>You are a man of your word.<BR/><BR/>I was not trying to hurt Larry by bringing out his hypocrisy. I am trying to get him to see reality. It is a fool's errand. As far as he is concerned, he is sane and everyone else is crazy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00590136448950817620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-48699546255980719862007-05-30T10:52:00.000-07:002007-05-30T10:52:00.000-07:00Larry wrote:Anyway, Alan, I don't see why you want...Larry wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>Anyway, Alan, I don't see why you want to bite the hand that feeds you. So far as I can see, I am the only one who has been trying to help you revive your blog. My blog has articles about your blog and a permanent link to your blog, and I was the one who suggested that you invite guest articles.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>As I said, this blog was an experiment to see what would happen if there were no moderation and no bans. I also hoped to draw in particular posters, especially Dave Springer, who often complained about being unable to engage with "church burnin' ebola boys" on their own turf. I don't have enough time to devote to running a blog and really don't want any further promotion, and I never solicited your help. In fact, I have studiously avoided your blog since your brother requested you be left alone until you decided to persuade me to join your association. The motive for your doing so appears to be to gain some credibility for yourself. Incidentally, my <A HREF="http://alanfox.blogspot.com/2006/03/suggestions-for-thread-subjects.html" REL="nofollow"> thread</A> on this blog was a request for guest posts, and I did post quite a few, so your suggestion was not original.<BR/><BR/><I>The amount of help I can give you is limited because I am averaging only about 40 visits per day, but your blog is in much worse shape with only about 10 visits per day.</I><BR/><BR/>As I said, Larry. I am not interested in promoting my blog. I am only surprised that interest lasted so long. <BR/><BR/><I>I don't see what you've got to lose by accepting my help while trying to overlook my holocaust revisionism and tolerance of some abusive language. And accepting help from a holocaust revisionist does not mean that you are a holocaust revisionist yourself.</I><BR/><BR/>This is a whole new world for me, Larry. <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/" REL="nofollow">This</A> is a mine of information on holocaust revisionists/deniers. Do you know I came across ID quite accidentally because an ID enthusiast confronted me in a forum unrelated to the issue and directed me to pro-ID sites. The result was probably not what he hoped for. Similarly, I did not realise holocaust denial/revisionism was such an industry in the US. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.To say I do not wish to be associated with it is an understatement. So I hope you will understand why I am walking away from your association forthwith.Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-32863158011650896452007-05-30T08:28:00.000-07:002007-05-30T08:28:00.000-07:00Larry said...(I assume this was directed at me.)Yo...Larry said...<BR/>(I assume this was directed at me.)<BR/><BR/><I>You can rant on all you want to here, but I am not going to waste any more time answering you. You are nothing but a big liar.</I><BR/><BR/>The readers here can see for themselves who is ranting. As for being a "big liar", has Larry actually denied any of the facts I have presented?<BR/><BR/><I>Also, Alan doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. He is just making this stuff up.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, Alan. It seems that we are all liars!<BR/><BR/>Alan Fox said... <BR/><I>Well, so long as you understand I will walk away if you do not keep to your own standards, I will join your association.</I><BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/><I>If Larry is promoting holocaust denial, that would certainly mean my withdrawal.</I><BR/><BR/><B>Well Alan?</B>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00590136448950817620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-47180047378597172542007-05-29T18:49:00.000-07:002007-05-29T18:49:00.000-07:00>>>>> Alan said (on this thread):"You may not agre...>>>>> Alan said (on this thread):<BR/><BR/>"You may not agree, but your persistent off-topic posts at PT were initially bounced to the bathroom wall legitimately, and it was only your subsequent use of aliases that earned you a permanent ban." <<<<<<<BR/><BR/>We were talking about Ed Brayton's blog, not PT, remember? And I posted a link to the exact point where Ed kicked me permanently off his blog. And my comment on Ed's blog was not off-topic -- Ed kicked me off his blog solely because he disagreed with the comment and he did not even give me a single chance to respond to his objection to my comment. <BR/><BR/>You can rant on all you want to here, but I am not going to waste any more time answering you. You are nothing but a big liar.<BR/><BR/>Also, Alan doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. He is just making this stuff up. My comments on PT were always on-topic unless I was responding to an off-topic comment that was directed at me -- and even then I tried to keep the digression short. And I did not start using multiple names until after I was banned there. Hey PT, I have a suggestion -- if you don't want me to use multiple names, then don't ban me.Larry Fafarmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01840916980486608228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-56698008184443058502007-05-29T18:01:00.000-07:002007-05-29T18:01:00.000-07:00Larry says: Bullshit. My SiteMeter "location" page...Larry says:<BR/><BR/><I> Bullshit. My SiteMeter "location" page shows that every day I get lots of visits from all over the USA and all over the world.</I><BR/><BR/>It was not necessary to warn us that your statement would be bullshit. We expect it.<BR/><BR/>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence that I am not against arbitrary censorship? <<<<<<BR/><BR/><I>Yes -- you approve of such censorship on Panda's Thumb, Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars, etc..</I><BR/><BR/>You have always believed that repeating a lie often enough will make it true. Sorry, Larry. It doesn't work that way.<BR/><BR/><I>I have presented many examples of such censorship.</I><BR/><BR/>No. You have only misrepresented cases where you were banned for the reasons Alan stated.<BR/><BR/><I>I have not ignored emails and I was talking about re-posting comments without sending me emails.</I><BR/><BR/>You have told commenters who believe that their posts were dropped to email them to you and you would post them yourself. Then you ignored the emails.<BR/><BR/>>>>>> We all know that is not why you were blocked. <<<<<<BR/><BR/>Alan said (on this thread):<BR/><BR/>"You may not agree, but your persistent off-topic posts at PT were initially bounced to the bathroom wall legitimately, and it was only your subsequent use of aliases that earned you a permanent ban."<BR/><BR/><I>I have already presented the whole story about this</I><BR/><BR/>You have lied about it again. The truth is that you were dropped for cause.<BR/><BR/>>>>>> Gossip about my private life -- e.g., my family and my employment status -- is still gossip whether it is true or not. <BR/><BR/>I have given my reasons for addressing them. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/><I>There are no reasons for addressing them</I><BR/><BR/>How about the ones I gave?<BR/><BR/><I>It is easy to make things up.</I><BR/><BR/>It is not necessary. You have never denied a thing that I have said except that Dave is your brother. Ed Brayton has proven that the Dave Fafarman who has posted on his blog is the real one except for the time you did a crude job of trying to impersonate him. Despite your denying him, Dave has bent over backwards to try to find something positive to say about you. That isn't easy.<BR/><BR/>>>>>> You claimed to be one of the world’s foremost experts on smog fee cases <<<<<<<BR/><BR/><I>That's true -- I am.</I><BR/><BR/>How does being laughed out of court on every single case make you an expert?<BR/><BR/>>>>>> Have you ever won a legal case anywhere? Don’t dodge this. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/><I>Why should I gossip about myself?</I><BR/><BR/>We can take that to be a <B>NO</B>.<BR/><BR/><I>Particularly about something that has no bearing on the discussions.</I><BR/><BR/>You are claiming to be one of the world's foremost experts on smog fee cases. The fact that your filings have been thrown out of court at the first hearing, without a single exception, certainly has a bearing on your credibility. (And please don't cry about crooked judges. You are small potatoes. They are not interested in conspiring against you.)<BR/><BR/><I>Do you gossip about yourself? We don't even know your name.</I><BR/><BR/>Most of "us" do know my name. Dave does.<BR/><BR/>>>>>> Now take one side of this or the other. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/><I>What sides? I was just making a statement of fact.</I><BR/><BR/>Two facts. One that all of your legal background can be found on the net and two that some of it can't be found on the net.<BR/><BR/>>>>>> It is relevant to your credibility and your willingness to believe outlandish things. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/><I>My credibility would be an issue if it were necessary for people to take my word for anything -- but it is generally not necessary to take my word for anything in discussions that I participate in.</I><BR/><BR/>Since you never back up anything you say other than by repetition, it would be necessary to take your word. Of course nobody does. Your answer verifies the accuracy of my statement. <BR/><BR/>>>>>> But Alan doesn’t censor! <<<<<<<<BR/><BR/><I>Bullshit -- Alan admitted to censoring comments because of abusive language.</I><BR/><BR/>I stand corrected. A more accurate statement would be that Alan doesn't censor arbitrarily. You drop statements some days that you would accept others. It may be related to when you take your medicine.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00590136448950817620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-7079165934253860082007-05-29T14:41:00.000-07:002007-05-29T14:41:00.000-07:00Voice said,>>>>>>Larry said:The amount of help I c...Voice said,<BR/>>>>>>>Larry said:<BR/><I>The amount of help I can give you is limited because I am averaging only about 40 visits per day, but your blog is in much worse shape with only about 10 visits per day </I><BR/><BR/>At least 30 of Larry’s visits can be attributed to three or four people including myself who only go there for the laughs, and his brother who goes there out of concern. <<<<<<<BR/> <BR/>Bullshit. My SiteMeter "location" page shows that every day I get lots of visits from all over the USA and all over the world. <BR/> <BR/>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence that I am not against arbitrary censorship? <<<<<<BR/> <BR/>Yes -- you approve of such censorship on Panda's Thumb, Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars, etc.. I have presented many examples of such censorship. <BR/> <BR/>>>>>><I> I have seen no attempt to re-post a comment that allegedly disappeared.</I><BR/><BR/>If you ignore the emails that you invited. <<<<<<<BR/> <BR/>I have not ignored emails and I was talking about re-posting comments without sending me emails.<BR/> <BR/>>>>>> <I>One example was where Ed Brayton kicked me off his blog permanently because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule </I><BR/><BR/>We all know that is not why you were blocked. Alan has even covered it on this blog. <<<<<<BR/> <BR/>Alan, is that true? Did your blog ever cover that incident? Anyway, I have already presented the whole story about this -- it is in a link in my last comment.<BR/> <BR/>>>>>> <I>Gossip about my private life -- e.g., my family and my employment status -- is still gossip whether it is true or not. </I><BR/><BR/>I have given my reasons for addressing them. <<<<<<<BR/> <BR/>There are no reasons for addressing them -- they are not relevant to the discussions.<BR/> <BR/>>>>>><I>Also, you pretend to be intimately familiar with my private life but you have no basis for such familiarity. You are just a no-good liar. </I><BR/><BR/>Would a person who doesn’t know you be able to make so many accurate statements about you? <<<<<<BR/> <BR/>It is easy to make things up. And if you do know me or people who know me, that is no excuse for posting gossip.<BR/> <BR/>>>>>> You claimed to be one of the world’s foremost experts on smog fee cases <<<<<<<BR/> <BR/>That's true -- I am.<BR/> <BR/>>>>>> Have you ever won a legal case anywhere? Don’t dodge this. <<<<<<<BR/> <BR/>Why should I gossip about myself? Particularly about something that has no bearing on the discussions. Do you gossip about yourself? We don't even know your name. Do you consider your name to be gossip?<BR/> <BR/>>>>>> Now take one side of this or the other. <<<<<<<BR/> <BR/>What sides? I was just making a statement of fact.<BR/> <BR/>>>>>> It is relevant to your credibility and your willingness to believe outlandish things. <<<<<<<BR/> <BR/>My credibility would be an issue if it were necessary for people to take my word for anything -- but it is generally not necessary to take my word for anything in discussions that I participate in. <BR/> <BR/>>>>>> But Alan doesn’t censor! <<<<<<<<BR/> <BR/>Bullshit -- Alan admitted to censoring comments because of abusive language. <BR/><BR/>blipey said... <BR/><BR/>>>>>> This is now my favorite thread here. I never would have thought that the "Gravity is the Strongest Force" thread would relinquish its title, but I was wrong. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/>That depends on what your criterion for "strongest force" is. If your criterion is the force per unit mass of the bodies creating the force, then gravity is a very weak force. However, if even one of the bodies is fairly massive, e.g., the earth, then gravity is a fairly strong force. Nuclear forces are often considered to be the strongest in terms of force or energy per unit mass. However, black holes and white-dwarf stars are supposed to have enormously powerful gravitational fields.<BR/><BR/>>>>>> Larry, would all of these comments have appeared on your blog? <<<<<<BR/><BR/>All the time.Larry Fafarmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01840916980486608228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-88535796998681120012007-05-29T12:49:00.000-07:002007-05-29T12:49:00.000-07:00This is now my favorite thread here. I never woul...This is now my favorite thread here. I never would have thought that the "Gravity is the Strongest Force" thread would relinquish its title, but I was wrong.<BR/><BR/>Just steller. Larry, would all of these comments have appeared on your blog?blipeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16888921194651901395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-8555584957214439692007-05-29T09:39:00.000-07:002007-05-29T09:39:00.000-07:00Larry said:The amount of help I can give you is li...Larry said:<BR/><I>The amount of help I can give you is limited because I am averaging only about 40 visits per day, but your blog is in much worse shape with only about 10 visits per day</I><BR/><BR/>At least 30 of Larry’s visits can be attributed to three or four people including myself who only go there for the laughs, and his brother who goes there out of concern. Is that the sort of attention that you want, Alan? I think that all you need is patience. The fact that you actually have a blog where people can discuss things without censorship is bound to eventually bring in more readers. In contrast, Larry is like a little child who acts up because he doesn’t feel he is getting enough attention.<BR/><BR/>>>>>> I am against arbitrary censorship. <<<<<<BR/><BR/><I>Baloney.</I><BR/><BR/>Do you have any evidence that I am not against arbitrary censorship? Your only case is that I don’t support your imagined claims. I know of no case where you were arbitrarily censored.<BR/><BR/><I> Despite all this talk about my arbitrarily censoring comments, I have seen no attempt to re-post a comment that allegedly disappeared.</I><BR/><BR/>If you ignore the emails that you invited.<BR/><BR/>>>>>>> Your complaints about being "arbitrarily" censored on other blogs are bogus. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/><I>One example was where Ed Brayton kicked me off his blog permanently because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule</I><BR/><BR/>We all know that is not why you were blocked. Alan has even covered it on this blog. Repeating a lie will never make it true. Can you come up with a <B>valid</B> example?<BR/><BR/><I> Gossip about my private life -- e.g., my family and my employment status -- is still gossip whether it is true or not.</I><BR/><BR/>I have given my reasons for addressing them. You are dodging replying to those reasons.<BR/><BR/><I>Also, you pretend to be intimately familiar with my private life but you have no basis for such familiarity. You are just a no-good liar.</I><BR/><BR/>Would a person who doesn’t know you be able to make so many accurate statements about you? Can you name a single statement that I have made that was inaccurate? I am intimately familiar with your private life and if you didn’t have your head buried so deeply in the sand, you would know who I am.<BR/><BR/>>>>>> I think that in this case mentioning that your parents and ancestors were Jews and would not have survived in WWII Germany was not out of line. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/><I>One thing that is taboo is gossiping about others' religion (or non-religion) without their permission.</I><BR/><BR/>I would think that the exception is obvious here.<BR/><BR/><I> Unless challenged, I don't claim to be a legal expert but just state my arguments.</I><BR/><BR/>Another lie. You have told how it is easy to become an expert on some aspects of the law and held yourself out as an example. You claimed to be one of the world’s foremost experts on smog fee cases despite the fact that every case you filed was thrown out of court.<BR/><BR/>Have you ever won a legal case anywhere? Don’t dodge this.<BR/><BR/><I> It is the task of others to counter those arguments rather than just make ad hominem attacks about my expertise</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps you should follow your own advice. You rarely counter arguments other than just repeat your original statements, followed by ad hominem attacks.<BR/><BR/>>>>>> Nonetheless, my legal career is in the public records and I have never threatened to censor mention of it. <BR/><BR/>You have said that we don't know what we are talking about because you claimed that some of your cases were not available publicly. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/><I>Some are almost certainly not available publicly, like my small claims cases. Other minor cases -- or cases filed before the Internet became prominent in the legal field -- might not be available on the Internet.</I><BR/><BR/>Now take one side of this or the other. You are currently trying to take both.<BR/><BR/><I>Frankly, I don't give a damn.</I><BR/><BR/>About truth or accuracy!. <BR/><BR/>>>>>>I was just confused by the incorrect definitions of a "meteor shower" as "radiating from," "originating in," or "emanating from" the constellation for which it is named.<BR/><BR/>Not because numerous people didn't try to explain it to you. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/><I>I immediately accepted the first explanation.</I><BR/><BR/>False, you continued to argue and insult those who tried to explain this simple phenomenon to you.<BR/><BR/><I>You are talking about things that you know nothing about.</I><BR/><BR/>Does anyone else believe that?<BR/><BR/>>>>>>> You didn't mention anything about your previous belief that the moon landings were staged. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/><I>Because it's not relevant to the discussions.</I><BR/><BR/>It is relevant to your credibility and your willingness to believe outlandish things. You once claimed that there were not enough factories on Earth to account for all of the consumer goods appearing on the store shelves without supernatural help. These items certainly speak to your sanity.<BR/><BR/>>>>>> Yes, Alan. As the only practicing member of the ANC, do you really want this link there? <<<<<<<BR/><BR/><I>I am an even better non-censoring blogger than Alan -- I accept holocuast (sic) denial and some abusive language but he does not.</I><BR/><BR/>But Alan doesn’t censor!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00590136448950817620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-27564798874511058622007-05-29T03:01:00.000-07:002007-05-29T03:01:00.000-07:00>>>>> I am against arbitrary censorship. Baloney...>>>>> I am against arbitrary censorship. <<<<<<BR/> <BR/>Baloney.<BR/> <BR/>>>>>> The only place that I have seen flagrant arbitrary censorship is on your blog "I'm From Missouri". <<<<<<BR/> <BR/>Despite all this talk about my arbitrarily censoring comments, I have seen no attempt to re-post a comment that allegedly disappeared.<BR/> <BR/>>>>>>> Your complaints about being "arbitrarily" censored on other blogs are bogus. <<<<<<<BR/> <BR/>Bullshit -- I gave several specific examples. <A HREF="http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/03/comments-censored-elsewhere-new-feature.html#c2753919959400074362" REL="nofollow">One example</A> was where Ed Brayton kicked me off his blog permanently because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule, and he didn't even give me a single chance to respond to his disagreement. <BR/><BR/>Gossip about my private life -- e.g., my family and my employment status -- is still gossip whether it is true or not. As I said, there is no gossip about others on my blog, so there should be no gossip about me there.<BR/><BR/>Also, you pretend to be intimately familiar with my private life but you have no basis for such familiarity. You are just a no-good liar.<BR/><BR/>>>>>> I think that in this case mentioning that your parents and ancestors were Jews and would not have survived in WWII Germany was not out of line. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/>One thing that is taboo is gossiping about others' religion (or non-religion) without their permission.<BR/><BR/>>>>>>> When you are discussing a legal subject and claim to be an expert, it does have a bearing.<BR/><BR/><I>Attorneys don't tell judges and juries about the legal careers of opposing attorneys. </I><BR/><BR/>They would certainly speak up if a person claiming to be an expert was not. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/>Unless challenged, I don't claim to be a legal expert but just state my arguments. It is the task of others to counter those arguments rather than just make ad hominem attacks about my expertise. In the law, expertise counts for nothing because it is not necessary to take anyone's word for anything -- the arguments and the cited authorities are out there for all to see. <BR/><BR/>>>>>> <I>Nonetheless, my legal career is in the public records and I have never threatened to censor mention of it. </I><BR/><BR/>You have said that we don't know what we are talking about because you claimed that some of your cases were not available publicly. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/>Some are almost certainly not available publicly, like my small claims cases. Other minor cases -- or cases filed before the Internet became prominent in the legal field -- might not be available on the Internet. Frankly, I don't give a damn. <BR/><BR/>>>>>> And you have threatened to censor mention of it. <<<<<<BR/><BR/>Another big lie.<BR/><BR/>>>>>><I>I was just confused by the incorrect definitions of a "meteor shower" as "radiating from," "originating in," or "emanating from" the constellation for which it is named.</I><BR/><BR/>Not because numerous people didn't try to explain it to you. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/>I immediately accepted the first explanation. You are talking about things that you know nothing about. You are just a big liar and you are not fooling anyone. <BR/><BR/>>>>>>> You didn't mention anything about your previous belief that the moon landings were staged. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/>Because it's not relevant to the discussions. One's arguments in each discussion should stand on their own merits.<BR/><BR/>>>>>> Yes, Alan. As the only practicing member of the ANCB, do you really want this link there? <<<<<<<BR/><BR/>I am an even better non-censoring blogger than Alan -- I accept holocuast denial and some abusive language but he does not.Larry Fafarmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01840916980486608228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1056088788074595142007-05-29T02:09:00.000-07:002007-05-29T02:09:00.000-07:00Anyway, Alan, I don't see why you want to bite t...Anyway, Alan, I don't see why you want to bite the hand that feeds you. So far as I can see, I am the only one who has been trying to help you revive your blog. My blog has articles about your blog and a permanent link to your blog, and I was the one who suggested that you invite guest articles. The amount of help I can give you is limited because I am averaging only about 40 visits per day, but your blog is in much worse shape with only about 10 visits per day. I don't see what you've got to lose by accepting my help while trying to overlook my holocaust revisionism and tolerance of some abusive language. And accepting help from a holocaust revisionist does not mean that you are a holocaust revisionist yourself.<BR/> <BR/>BTW, it looks like your sidebar has automatic listing of recent comments! I thought that feature was not available on Blogger.com, so I would greatly appreciate it if you told me how you did that. Is it a feature that is now automatically included in the New Blogger's layout mode? I stayed in the template mode after switching to New Blogger because I don't like the link list formatting in the layout mode. Also, personally I would prefer a longer list, like 10 comments instead of just 5.Larry Fafarmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01840916980486608228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-32472160639488593522007-05-29T01:29:00.000-07:002007-05-29T01:29:00.000-07:00Larry Fafarman said... It is ironic that those who...Larry Fafarman said... <BR/><I>It is ironic that those who see nothing wrong with the flagrant arbitrary censorship of comments and commenters on other blogs have complained the loudest when I draw the line somewhere on my blog.</I><BR/><BR/>As you know, that is a false statement. I am against arbitrary censorship. The only place that I have seen flagrant arbitrary censorship is on your blog "I'm From Missouri". Your complaints about being "arbitrarily" censored on other blogs are bogus. You were banned for cause and only after numerous warnings.<BR/><BR/><I> My prohibition of gossip about my private life -- e.g., my family and my employment status -- is reasonable. My private life is not germane to the discussions and we don't gossip about the private lives of others on my blog.</I><BR/><BR/>Normally I would agree with you. The exceptions came first when your brother Dave posted first on “Dispatches” and then on your own blog. You first tried to deny he was your real brother which was only disingenuous. You then tried to discredit him by impersonating him in posts on both blogs. This was out of line. Ed Brayton brilliantly proved the attempt at deception. When others then followed your lead and impersonated you, you were outraged. It looks like a double standard, Larry.<BR/><BR/>Also along the family line, when you got into the holocaust, people questioned your motives. While normally mentioning or discussing a person's religion would be out of bounds, I think that in this case mentioning that your parents and ancestors were Jews and would not have survived in WWII Germany was not out of line.<BR/><BR/>As to your employment status, you claim to be a retired engineer. This would relate to your credibility on technical issues. You once were an engineer but you are not retired. There is a difference between fired and retired, yet perhaps this could be considered too personal. I would say that if you did not claim technical expertise, people would not attack you on this line even if those attacks consist merely of telling the truth.<BR/><BR/><I> I did offer to post others' comments myself, but I have never received such emails. </I><BR/><BR/>The emails were sent by me and at least one other. I find it hard to believe that you did not receive them. They did not bounce.<BR/><BR/><I> It's not that my "legal career" is gossip, it's just that my legal career -- whether good or bad -- has no bearing on the discussions. </I><BR/><BR/>When you are discussing a legal subject and claim to be an expert, it does have a bearing. As I have said before (perhaps uncharitably) If a person claims to be Annie Oakley, the fact that they have failed in twelve consecutive attempts to hit the ground with a sack of manure is admissible.<BR/><BR/><I> Attorneys don't tell judges and juries about the legal careers of opposing attorneys. </I><BR/><BR/>They would certainly speak up if a person claiming to be an expert was not.<BR/><BR/><I> My legal career is a particular sore spot with me because of my many encounters with crooked judges and attorneys. </I><BR/><BR/>This is like the person who has had nine divorces and finds fault only with his ex-wives. Even those on your side were trying to distance themselves from you.<BR/><BR/><I> Nonetheless, my legal career is in the public records and I have never threatened to censor mention of it. </I><BR/><BR/>You have said that we don't know what we are talking about because you claimed that some of your cases <B>were not</B> available publicly. Now you admit that they are part of the public record. And you <B>have</B> threatened to censor mention of it.<BR/><BR/>>>>>> Larry's other claims have been a belief that meteors come from inside the atmosphere <<<<<<BR/><BR/><I>I don't hold such a belief</I><BR/><BR/>Now you don’t hold such a belief. You did.<BR/><BR/><I>I was just confused by the incorrect definitions of a "meteor shower" as "radiating from," "originating in," or "emanating from" the constellation for which it is named.</I><BR/><BR/>Not because numerous people didn't try to explain it to you. As usual, you ignored all evidence contrary to your belief and pretended that it had not been given.<BR/><BR/>You didn't mention anything about your previous belief that the moon landings were staged. Do you deny stating that? If you have changed your mind on this, why do you ignore your brother's requests to explain what changed your mind? How about your belief that the Los Angeles Times cannot possibly be edited printed, and then distributed to as many places as it is found without supernatural aid? How about your belief a few years ago that you were going to die within the next 24 hours? You may believe this to be irrelevant but it does relate to your mental state and overall credibility.<BR/><BR/><I>Also, you still haven't answered my question -- do you want to fix your non-working link on my ANCB website or do you want me to fix it?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, Alan. As the only practicing member of the ANCB, do you really want this link there?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00590136448950817620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-8068673466797142602007-05-28T20:45:00.000-07:002007-05-28T20:45:00.000-07:00It is ironic that those who see nothing wrong wit...It is ironic that those who see nothing wrong with the flagrant arbitrary censorship of comments and commenters on other blogs have complained the loudest when I draw the line somewhere on my blog. My prohibition of gossip about my private life -- e.g., my family and my employment status -- is reasonable. My private life is not germane to the discussions and we don't gossip about the private lives of others on my blog. <BR/> <BR/>Voice said,<BR/>>>>>> Several commenters have complained of their posts disappearing and Larry has suggested “technical problems” and tells people to forward the posts to his personal email and he will post them himself. Larry has never acknowledged or responded to an email from me and at least one other commenters. <<<<<<BR/> <BR/>I did offer to post others' comments myself, but I have never received such emails. I said that if a comment disappears, it should just be re-posted. <BR/> <BR/>>>>>> One thing he seems to find to be “gossip” is mention of specifics of the cases he has lost in his disasterous amateur legal career. <<<<<<<BR/> <BR/>It's not that my "legal career" is gossip, it's just that my legal career -- whether good or bad -- has no bearing on the discussions. Attorneys don't tell judges and juries about the legal careers of opposing attorneys. Discussing my legal career is just an attempt to make an ad hominem attack and I have a right to get very, very pissed off about it. My legal career is a particular sore spot with me because of my many encounters with crooked judges and attorneys. Nonetheless, my legal career is in the public records and I have never threatened to censor mention of it. <BR/> <BR/>>>>>> Larry's other claims have been a belief that meteors come from inside the atmosphere <<<<<<BR/> <BR/>I don't hold such a belief -- I was just confused by the incorrect definitions of a "meteor shower" as "radiating from," "originating in," or "emanating from" the constellation for which it is named. The correct definition is that the meteor trails start all over the sky and that their <B><I>directions</B></I> radiate from the constellation. I accepted this explanation a long time ago but some people just insist on kicking a dead horse because there are so few ways they have of attacking me. <BR/> <BR/>Alan Fox says in various places --<BR/>>>>>>Larry's views on the holocaust (I was under the impression Larry is a revisionist, disputing details, not that the events did not occur) are not an issue of censorship, so long as he allows free debate, supports his claims or admits error. <BR/> <BR/>If Larry is promoting holocaust denial, that would certainly mean my withdrawal.<BR/> <BR/>I have read through the threads and comments relating to Hitler and the holocaust. It does seem Larry is able to ignore evidence and to churn out abuse on a regular basis. <<<<<<<BR/><BR/>Alan,<BR/><BR/>Your above comments show that you are very wishy-washy about this issue of my views about Hitler and the holocaust. My views about Hitler and the holocaust have nothing to do with whether or not I run a censorship-free blog. As for abuse, my standards for abuse just happen to be different from yours. I say that abuse is OK so long as it does not disparage anyone's race, color, sex, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin. I want my blog to remain as free of censorship as possible and I want to feel free to retaliate if someone abuses me, so those are the reasons why I have this lenient policy on abusive comments.<BR/><BR/>Also, you still haven't answered my question -- do you want to fix your non-working link on my ANCB website or do you want me to fix it?Larry Fafarmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01840916980486608228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-417928344923200112007-05-28T12:47:00.000-07:002007-05-28T12:47:00.000-07:00I would suggest that you read Larry’s blog yoursel...<I>I would suggest that you read Larry’s blog yourself and decide if this is a standard you approve.</I><BR/><BR/>I have read through the threads and comments relating to Hitler and the holocaust. It does seem Larry is able to ignore evidence and to churn out abuse on a regular basis.Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-39712443217025169492007-05-28T10:43:00.000-07:002007-05-28T10:43:00.000-07:00Larry’s header states:Censorship will be avoided i...Larry’s header states:<BR/><I>Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments</I><BR/>It is not possible to link to deleted comments for proof. At first there were “comment deleted” notices but then these disappeared. Larry will leave many critical posts on and then boldly point to them as proof that others are not deleted.<BR/><BR/>Several commenters have complained of their posts disappearing and Larry has suggested “technical problems” and tells people to forward the posts to his personal email and he will post them himself. Larry has never acknowledged or responded to an email from me and at least one other commenters. Of course I have no way of knowing how many more there may be.<BR/><BR/>He also repeatedly specifies which items he will censor, personal items he calls “gossip”. "Gossip" doesn't seem to fit under your two limitations of spam and obscenity. "Gossip" seems to cover anything Larry finds to be uncomfortable. One thing he seems to find to be “gossip” is mention of specifics of the cases he has lost in his disasterous amateur legal career. While he often brings up the cases himself and claims to be a legal expert in some limited fields. He attacks the judges and complains of a conspiracy. Of course he also allows some, possibly most, comments on this subject. <B>His censorship is completely arbitrary.</B> It is the sort of thing that he rails against.<BR/><BR/>Another thing that he fits into the “gossip” category is any mention of his brother Dave, who often posts on his blog and who Larry calls “Fake Dave”. When Dave first posted on Larry’s blog, Larry denied that Dave was his real brother, then he harrassed their elderly mother into calling Dave to demand that he stop posting. Next, Larry posted both on “Dispatches” and on his own blog impersonating Dave. Ed Brayton described similar tactics on his “Dispatches” blog with his article <B>Will the Real Dave Fafarman Please Stand Up</B> and brilliantly proved who was lying in a thread titled <B>The Real Dave Fafarman Revealed”</B>.<BR/><BR/>A commenter going by the name of “Hector” mentioned Dave as the source of an analogy which he gave, to which Larry hit the ceiling “The name Dave or David Fafarman or my "brother," "sibling" or "relative," or whatever, named "Dave" or "David" or not named will not be allowed in comments here, except that Fake Dave may use it as a posting name because that is now his identity here...”<BR/>As far as other “gossip”, in discussing his basis for his hostility to those who claim that the holocaust is real, he deletes any post pointing out that his parents, both still living, are both Jewish. I don’t even pretend to understand his problem here. The bottom line is that what Larry has told you about his holocaust position and what still remains on his blog differ greatly.<BR/><BR/>Larry’s header also states:<BR/><I>Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged.</I><BR/>It would not take you more than a few minutes of reading of Larry’s blog to see that he is nearly always the first one to resort to ad hominem attacks and insults. His commenters often respond in kind but there are few cases where they initiate these attacks and insults.<BR/><BR/>Besides holocaust denial and a disbelief in evolution, some of Larry's other claims have been a belief that meteors come from inside the atmosphere and that the moon landings were done in a Hollywood studio. He seems to have backed off on the later two.<BR/><BR/>You have chosen to associate yourself with this hypocrisy while not seeming to practice it yourself. I won’t do your research for you. I would suggest that you read Larry’s blog yourself and decide if this is a standard you approve. "Lie down with dogs and you will get up with fleas."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00590136448950817620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-59758249667250576422007-05-28T05:12:00.000-07:002007-05-28T05:12:00.000-07:00Have you read the latest threads? Do you really be...<I>Have you read the latest threads? Do you really believe that he has kept to his own standards?</I><BR/><BR/>I must confess I did not read the detail of Larry's standards. My concern is that he does not arbitrarily censor comments for content on his blog. If you have evidence that he is deleting comments for reasons other that spam or obscenity, then I will reconsider. Larry's views on the holocaust (I was under the impression Larry is a revisionist, disputing details, not that the events did not occur) are not an issue of censorship, so long as he allows free debate, supports his claims or admits error. Holocaust denial that flies in the face of evidence is a criminal offence in Germany for example. If Larry is promoting holocaust denial, that would certainly mean my withdrawal.<BR/><BR/>A link to any offending article would be appreciated.Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.com