Tired of Jim_Mich ??
Moderator: scott
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am
re: Tired of Jim_Mich ??
rasselasss,
jim_mich's feet are currently being held to the fire because of his own behavior in this forum. Maybe you are not perceptive enough to see that.
I noticed you removed your original comment about Cloud Camper. I still have it here, but I won't post it.
Anyway, I don't agree with Cloud Camper that jim_mich should be encouraged to leave the forum, but I do understand why he might suggest that.
Do you not remember when jim_mich himself called for the banning of Cloud Camper when poor jim_mich's ideas were just being challenged? Do you not remember when poor jim_mich started a thread in which he felt he could get away with and was justified in calling another forum member a "clod of crap" repeatedly.
Why weren't you defending Cloud Camper or the others that maybe jim_mich cussed out or whatever when they disagreed with him? Aren't you being a hypocrite?
jim_mich and apparently you need to come to the understanding that there is nothing stopping him from sharing his ideas. He can start a thread like anyone else here and discuss his ideas all he wants.
...but when he gets things wrong and is challenged on it - especially when he has spammed his ideas into other threads - he truly does need to suck it up if he's not going to be honest enough to admit his mistakes - or, of course, just accept that others may hold differing opinions as strongly as he does (where, of course, they can be but opinions).
It doesn't seem to me that sharing his ideas is enough for jim_mich, though. He seems to want everyone else to adopt his own beliefs - or to leave or shut up if they disagree with him - and apparently including some of us who have very good reasons to disagree with him. ...for some of what he says is not a matter of opinion but rather of him getting experimentally verifiable facts just plain wrong.
Anyway, I believe jim_mich is currently getting his just desserts, and if he wants things to change, he's going to have to change himself. ...and maybe even apologize to all those he's offended and/or even lied about. He has most definitely lied about me to try to discredit me - and he doesn't appear to feel any sort of remorse about that.
If you are interested in jim_mich's ideas, maybe you should just use the search function. He seems to repeat them often and in multiple threads.
Dwayne
jim_mich's feet are currently being held to the fire because of his own behavior in this forum. Maybe you are not perceptive enough to see that.
I noticed you removed your original comment about Cloud Camper. I still have it here, but I won't post it.
Anyway, I don't agree with Cloud Camper that jim_mich should be encouraged to leave the forum, but I do understand why he might suggest that.
Do you not remember when jim_mich himself called for the banning of Cloud Camper when poor jim_mich's ideas were just being challenged? Do you not remember when poor jim_mich started a thread in which he felt he could get away with and was justified in calling another forum member a "clod of crap" repeatedly.
Why weren't you defending Cloud Camper or the others that maybe jim_mich cussed out or whatever when they disagreed with him? Aren't you being a hypocrite?
jim_mich and apparently you need to come to the understanding that there is nothing stopping him from sharing his ideas. He can start a thread like anyone else here and discuss his ideas all he wants.
...but when he gets things wrong and is challenged on it - especially when he has spammed his ideas into other threads - he truly does need to suck it up if he's not going to be honest enough to admit his mistakes - or, of course, just accept that others may hold differing opinions as strongly as he does (where, of course, they can be but opinions).
It doesn't seem to me that sharing his ideas is enough for jim_mich, though. He seems to want everyone else to adopt his own beliefs - or to leave or shut up if they disagree with him - and apparently including some of us who have very good reasons to disagree with him. ...for some of what he says is not a matter of opinion but rather of him getting experimentally verifiable facts just plain wrong.
Anyway, I believe jim_mich is currently getting his just desserts, and if he wants things to change, he's going to have to change himself. ...and maybe even apologize to all those he's offended and/or even lied about. He has most definitely lied about me to try to discredit me - and he doesn't appear to feel any sort of remorse about that.
If you are interested in jim_mich's ideas, maybe you should just use the search function. He seems to repeat them often and in multiple threads.
Dwayne
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
I prefer working alone.
- preoccupied
- Addict
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:28 am
- Location: Michigan
- Contact:
re: Tired of Jim_Mich ??
furcurequs wronte: It doesn't seem to me that sharing his ideas is enough for jim_mich, though. He seems to want everyone else to adopt his own beliefs - or to leave or shut up if they disagree with him - and apparently including some of us who have very good reasons to disagree with him. ...for some of what he says is not a matter of opinion but rather of him getting experimentally verifiable facts just plain wrong.
Jim_Mich can't be quoted to have meant that in any context. He does not want anybody to adopt his beliefs, he is just asking questions and sharing dialog with people. Those who are genuinely interested in this topic would appreciate it and only those who are bizarrely too interested in this topic and become defensive somehow would reject this friendly gesture of like interest. FIND one quote where he directly insists someone else accept his viewpoint or to shut up and leave. You can't because you just made that whole paragraph up maybe. If you have a quote I will apologize but I have never seen it.
Jim_Mich can't be quoted to have meant that in any context. He does not want anybody to adopt his beliefs, he is just asking questions and sharing dialog with people. Those who are genuinely interested in this topic would appreciate it and only those who are bizarrely too interested in this topic and become defensive somehow would reject this friendly gesture of like interest. FIND one quote where he directly insists someone else accept his viewpoint or to shut up and leave. You can't because you just made that whole paragraph up maybe. If you have a quote I will apologize but I have never seen it.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
-
- Aficionado
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:19 pm
- Location: northern ireland
re: Tired of Jim_Mich ??
Furcurequs,without giving the usual long winded tirade of what YOU perceive to be Jim Mich's faults....... please explain your difficulty of WHY it is beyond your capability to press the ignore button?....
re: Tired of Jim_Mich ??
If it's such a great feature, why aren't you asking Jim why he doesn't use it?
-
- Aficionado
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:19 pm
- Location: northern ireland
re: Tired of Jim_Mich ??
Having been educated in "skunk tank thinking", I find it difficult to press an ignore button on any member.
We are here to discuss and collaborate over theory, history of topic, and accepted laws of physics,
There should be no name calling such as "idiot" liar, or anything taken personal. No idea, no matter its relevance should be ignored, often the most promising approach may come from an illiterate who's idea may sound stupid, but given a chance, it may get bounced around and something good may come of it.
There are two advocates to think tanking, Murphy's Law and Occam's razor.
EXCERPTS FROM WIKI:
"Murphy's law or the fourth law of thermodynamics" (actually there were only three last I heard) which states: "If anything can go wrong, it will.
It is an experience common to all men to find that, on any special occasion, such as the production of a new machine for the first time in public, everything that can go wrong will go wrong. Whether we must attribute this to the malignity of matter or to the total depravity of inanimate things, whether the exciting cause is hurry, worry, or what not, the fact remains.
The perceived perversity of the universe has long been a subject of comment, and precursors to the modern version of Murphy's law are not hard to find.
Occam's razor: (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.
The application of the principle can be used to shift the burden of proof in a discussion. However, Alan Baker, who suggests this in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is careful to point out that his suggestion should not be taken generally, but only as it applies in a particular context, that is: philosophers who argue in opposition to metaphysical theories that involve allegedly “superfluous ontological apparatus�.[a] Baker then notices that principles, including Occam’s Razor, are often expressed in a way that is not clear regarding which facet of “simplicity� — parsimony or elegance — is being referred to, and that in a hypothetical formulation the facets of simplicity may work in different directions: a simpler description may refer to a more complex hypothesis, and a more complex description may refer to a simpler hypothesis
If jim_mich could abide by these standards, quit lying about what he has or does not have, and cease his irrational abuse of every comment that does not agree with his personal opinion, there would be no problem!
To collaborate, means to rufute, rebuff, add to, and what if's. we can all live better without "REBUKE"
Ralph
We are here to discuss and collaborate over theory, history of topic, and accepted laws of physics,
There should be no name calling such as "idiot" liar, or anything taken personal. No idea, no matter its relevance should be ignored, often the most promising approach may come from an illiterate who's idea may sound stupid, but given a chance, it may get bounced around and something good may come of it.
There are two advocates to think tanking, Murphy's Law and Occam's razor.
EXCERPTS FROM WIKI:
"Murphy's law or the fourth law of thermodynamics" (actually there were only three last I heard) which states: "If anything can go wrong, it will.
It is an experience common to all men to find that, on any special occasion, such as the production of a new machine for the first time in public, everything that can go wrong will go wrong. Whether we must attribute this to the malignity of matter or to the total depravity of inanimate things, whether the exciting cause is hurry, worry, or what not, the fact remains.
The perceived perversity of the universe has long been a subject of comment, and precursors to the modern version of Murphy's law are not hard to find.
Occam's razor: (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.
The application of the principle can be used to shift the burden of proof in a discussion. However, Alan Baker, who suggests this in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is careful to point out that his suggestion should not be taken generally, but only as it applies in a particular context, that is: philosophers who argue in opposition to metaphysical theories that involve allegedly “superfluous ontological apparatus�.[a] Baker then notices that principles, including Occam’s Razor, are often expressed in a way that is not clear regarding which facet of “simplicity� — parsimony or elegance — is being referred to, and that in a hypothetical formulation the facets of simplicity may work in different directions: a simpler description may refer to a more complex hypothesis, and a more complex description may refer to a simpler hypothesis
If jim_mich could abide by these standards, quit lying about what he has or does not have, and cease his irrational abuse of every comment that does not agree with his personal opinion, there would be no problem!
To collaborate, means to rufute, rebuff, add to, and what if's. we can all live better without "REBUKE"
Ralph
- preoccupied
- Addict
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:28 am
- Location: Michigan
- Contact:
re: Tired of Jim_Mich ??
rlortie I think Jim Mich is only disagreeing with personal attacks on him. A lot of discussion with Jim Mich is veiled threats on his character and veiled personal attacks on his beard or anything else, it's all mixed in. It is very easy behavior to imitate. I'm just about ready to start bashing Jim Mich because it is beginning to look fun. You guys should probably mellow out and accept that a few forum members were bashing Jim Mich and even more of you are too pushy to know what his design is and won't accept dialog about hypotheticals in exchange.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
re: Tired of Jim_Mich ??
preoccupied,
If you believe this all boils down to personal attacks on Jim, then Jim should take a long look at his behavior. Personal attacks usually have something to fuel their desire to be made. Most of the time it is best to ignore, rather than throw more wood on the fire.
As a man, he should simply ignore personal attacks, consider the source and let it go. If he calls me an "idiot" (which he has done). I consider the source, shed it like water off a ducks back and move on with my life.
Jim cannot seem to do this, he has to take it in emotionally, to deep for his own good. It is not in good taste, and promotes negative peer review.
Ralph
If you believe this all boils down to personal attacks on Jim, then Jim should take a long look at his behavior. Personal attacks usually have something to fuel their desire to be made. Most of the time it is best to ignore, rather than throw more wood on the fire.
As a man, he should simply ignore personal attacks, consider the source and let it go. If he calls me an "idiot" (which he has done). I consider the source, shed it like water off a ducks back and move on with my life.
Jim cannot seem to do this, he has to take it in emotionally, to deep for his own good. It is not in good taste, and promotes negative peer review.
Ralph
-
- Aficionado
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:19 pm
- Location: northern ireland
re: Tired of Jim_Mich ??
Riortie, you state you'll not "ignore"button Jim Mich or any member,but you've" red-dotted" him.....surely a contradiction in any sense of reasoning.....a pity you can't follow the advice you proffer to Jim Mich in the above post......
re: Tired of Jim_Mich ??
rass,
As I am sure many will agree, there is a difference in making a peer evaluation and completely ignoring someone.
it is not IMO a contradiction, I have no reason or obligation one way or the other to hit anyone's ignore button. It is within my empirical teaching to listen to anyone who offers ideas and suggestions regarding our pursuit.
What I can live without is the inflammatory remarks of one peer towards another, as the word describes I find them: provocative, incendiary, inflaming, inciting, agitating, stirring, rousing, provoking, fomenting, rabble-rousing, seditious, subversive, mutinous, fiery, passionate, controversial, and contentious.
Ralph
As I am sure many will agree, there is a difference in making a peer evaluation and completely ignoring someone.
it is not IMO a contradiction, I have no reason or obligation one way or the other to hit anyone's ignore button. It is within my empirical teaching to listen to anyone who offers ideas and suggestions regarding our pursuit.
What I can live without is the inflammatory remarks of one peer towards another, as the word describes I find them: provocative, incendiary, inflaming, inciting, agitating, stirring, rousing, provoking, fomenting, rabble-rousing, seditious, subversive, mutinous, fiery, passionate, controversial, and contentious.
Ralph
Funny, where do you disappear to when Jim posts his "long winded tirades"?rasselasss wrote:ED..Now there's the question....I've asked Dwayne,now i'm asking you....without a long winded tirade,please explain YOUR difficulty...
With all due respect, rass, I don't think you've been here long enough to take sides.
I still want to see you pose the question directly to Jim, but here is my answer.
First, the ignore button doesn't mean you will never see any trace of a person and what they post on this forum, so it's not worth using IMO. Second, I don't prefer to see gaps in threads where someone had posted but now I can't see it and others are discussing something I didn't know was there. It would be confusing to read threads that way. Don't you think?
Lastly, I would prefer to work out issues with other forum members, instead of letting them fester for years. If you listen to Jim, anything he says that is negative is only in response to him being bullied. Don't belive that for a second. Many times he will come back from a break and start in on members out of the blue.
I've tried to reach out to Jim in order to make amends, but he ignores the attempts. Seems both parties have to be willing to admit to the issues they have caused in order to apologize and move on. It seems some people just can't do that. It's a shame really.
Obviously bullies never see themselves as bullies. When I lashed out and bashed back, good golly, were you ever offended!Ed wrote:If you listen to Jim, anything he says that is negative is only in response to him being bullied. Don't belive that for a second.
Ed, if you are really ever serious about reaching out to me, and making amends, then simply stop bashing me. Then enter into discussing Bessler related things. And don't stick you finger in you ears and yell, "No, no, no. You're wrong." and then say something like "Well I don't have time to show why you're wrong, but just trust me, you're wrong, because you're an idiot, and I'm right, because I'm the big and powerful Ed." (Paraphrased of course) Ed, that just doesn't cut it.
re: Tired of Jim_Mich ??
Dunes,
To date, apparently we are all wrong about Bessler, otherwise we would have facsimiles of his machine churning out power all over the globe!
As I see it, we do not have the answer, so how can you say who is right and who is wrong. Arguments that are supposed to be debates, leading to personal conflict is based on the opinion of those who stand firm in their beliefs, while others disagree.
If you are familiar with the term; "Bible Thumper" then you know what a Bessler gravitationalist verses a motionalist is. (spell checker is not happy with me) :-)
And then of course there is always the episodes between builders and theorists. It beats watching television and unlike cock fights no animals are harmed!
Ralph
To date, apparently we are all wrong about Bessler, otherwise we would have facsimiles of his machine churning out power all over the globe!
As I see it, we do not have the answer, so how can you say who is right and who is wrong. Arguments that are supposed to be debates, leading to personal conflict is based on the opinion of those who stand firm in their beliefs, while others disagree.
If you are familiar with the term; "Bible Thumper" then you know what a Bessler gravitationalist verses a motionalist is. (spell checker is not happy with me) :-)
And then of course there is always the episodes between builders and theorists. It beats watching television and unlike cock fights no animals are harmed!
Ralph
We don't have facsimiles because his wheel wasn't churning out power either.
Am I saying who is right or wrong? Or are you asking how can anyone say who is right or wrong?
What says who is right or wrong is nature.
I'm familiar with bible thumpers. But I don't think we have to compare gravitationalists vs. motionalists with faith. It's a matter of conception of nature.
I'm a theorist, I wouldn't build something unless my theory was validated by nature.
I watch a few tv shows, mostly sitcoms, sports and news.
Am I saying who is right or wrong? Or are you asking how can anyone say who is right or wrong?
What says who is right or wrong is nature.
I'm familiar with bible thumpers. But I don't think we have to compare gravitationalists vs. motionalists with faith. It's a matter of conception of nature.
I'm a theorist, I wouldn't build something unless my theory was validated by nature.
I watch a few tv shows, mostly sitcoms, sports and news.