User talk:Tommysun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive

Archives
1 2 3


"What you don't know

doesn't hurt as much as

what you do know

that ain't so"

[edit] Talk Page Postings

Please do not post ten pages of text at a time to talk pages. This makes them almost impossible to read. It also makes you look somewhat foolish: if you have to use that many words to explain something, then either you don't understand it or it is far too complex to be conveyed in Wikipedia or you are trying to cover yourself by saying everything so that no one will be able to refute your statements in finite time. If you must cite these things, link to them (I'm assuming that you aren't typing in the text yourself). Do not overuse copy and paste. Michaelbusch 22:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I only do that because I am convinced that an unusually large number of Wiki editors do not know how to comprehend what they are reading. For example you Michael clearly have not read the literature, nor have you bothered to read even the archives. Nor can you, or anyone else, explain how an archive can get deleted forever. Nice strategy your friends got going for them --"Quick! Burn the letters!" "Quick! Get rid of the evidence!" How can you judge the authenticity of scientific work unless you yourself are competant to make that judgement? And the method that you carried out your investigation with proves that you are not competant enough to judge.
Please read and understand Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Michaelbusch 06:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I read that about primary sources. Sorry, the way I research is to find the primary sources. It's always different from the secondary sources. I don't have to have someone do my thinking for me. I especially don't need someone who not only is not thinking and using the secondary sources, but manages to think anyhow and interject his opinion as if it were the fact. I understand that without the competance to evaluate the primary source, the secondary source, an interpretation of the primary source, is favored. But not required. The problem you and your friends are faced with is that there are no primary sources outside of those who would dupe you. Your theory, if traced back to the root, has as its basis a lie.

You should feel foolish trying to convince me that all those lights are headlights or cell phones. Are you really trying to tell me that the need for light at night explains the balls of light? Scary that some people would believe that. That sounds just like Darkfred and his theory of "balloons lighted with a flashlight." Those English must be pretty dumb to name a hill Golden Ball Hill because of headlights seen coming over the top. Let me put it into just a few words for you

Those scientists who have investigated the crop circles cannot explain some of the observations they have found. The changes in clay crystalization, explained in detail in the BLT XRD report, are measurable by standardized protocol. When examined by an XRD (X-Ray Diffraction) expert, who, incidently, was unaware of the crop circles and the controversy surrounding them, these changes constitute objective, verifiable evidence. Of course it goes without saying they have ruled out planks and garden rollers.

Can you understand that? There is no "mainstream science" viewpoint, which you are alluding to, as if ignorance of a situation is some kind of authoritative knowledge. When scientists use the word they are referring to the mainstream view in a particular field. To generalize that particular mainstream view in microbiology to geology is not science.

Tommy Mandel 06:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it called Golden Ball Hill, Tommy? --BillC 20:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Colin Andrews wrote: "These lights are so ubiguitous that accounts of them esist in English folklore and there is actually a hill near Alton Barnes near the East Field in Wiltshire known as "Golden Ball Hill." From Crop Circles: Signs of Contact. page 50 209.244.42.20 23:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Is he suggesting that Golden Ball Hill is so-named because of an association with floating balls of light? --BillC 22:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Because his statement is placed in section 2.14 Lighting the Way? I would say, yes, he is suggesting that the floating balls of light (of which he has five movies of,) are the reason Golden Ball Hill was given that name. 209.244.42.20 23:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In all the years I lived in the county of Wiltshire, less than twelve miles away, I never heard of such an association. Golden Ball Hill has borne that name for many years and appears on maps dated 1889. --BillC 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So far you have not said anything. Why was it originally called Golden Ball Hill?Tommy Mandel 05:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

He has said quite a bit: if it was called Golden Ball Hill before crop circles were reported in the area, then the crop circles (and any lights associated with them) have nothing to do with the name, regardless of the actual origin. Michaelbusch 05:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither have you said anything. Again, why was the hill named Golden Ball Hill in the first place? Did they see golden balls of light then too? Tommy Mandel 07:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I took another look at Levengood's report that CSICOP criticized. The criticisms were mainly about the careful and honest reporting by Levengood. CSICOP took those carefully crafted and honest statements and twisted them around to make it appear that Levengood was unsure. This field is replete with deception and outright lying, and CSICOP is no exception. Their work is not science. They offer only alternatives, and having done that, imply that their alternative explanation is correct just as Mike concluded that he explained all the ball of lights as flashlights being used by the circlemakers. (He doesn't explain why the hoaxers also report seeing Balls of Light...)I do not understand how you all can be duped so easily by the crooks. But that is the result of not knowing about what you are talking about. To foster this ignorance on the Wikipedia reader, however, is also deception. However, the problem is not as serious with our kids as it would seem, asking a kid what she thought about Wikipedia, her reply was "you mean Wikishit?" None of you are smart enough to cover up your POV pushing. You are not content to merely remove evidence, you have to add a little dig here and there which to a reader is very obvious. Already teachers will not allow Wikipedia as a reference. You got what you asked for.

Tommy Mandel 16:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by being incivil. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not have any regrets stating what I feel in my heart, here or anywhere. You do not control me. You block me because I do not follow your rules. But you do not follow your own rules. It is an honor to be blocked by you Tommy Mandel 07:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 1 Dec 06 Washington, DC
1. FRAUD IN SCIENCE: SCIENCE MAGAZINE HAS DELIVERED A RESPONSE. It is not unethical to be wrong. Every scientist will at times be wrong, but we assume that authors of science papers THINK they got it right. The rewards of success are so high in certain areas, however, that it must be tempting to guess the answer without doing the research. We saw it in 2002 with Jan Hendrik Schoen at Bell Labs, and again in 2004 with the stem cell work of Woo Suk Hwang at Seoul National University. In the Hwang case, Science, which published the work, immediately retracted the two papers and began a thorough review of the peer review procedure. The report urges scientists to give special attention to research results that are especially visible or influential. Today, in a Science editorial, Donald Kennedy invites comments.

"There are four key qualities that make a crowd smart. It needs to be diverse, so that people are bringing different pieces of information to the table. It needs to be decentralized, so that no one at the top is dictating the crowd's answer. It needs a way of summarizing people's opinions into one collective verdict. And the people in the crowd need to be independent, so that they pay attention mostly to their own information, and not worrying about what everyone around them thinks.

Essentially, any time most of the people in a group are biased in the same direction, it's probably not going to make good decisions. So when diverse opinions are either frozen out or squelched when they're voiced, groups tend to be dumb. And when people start paying too much attention to what others in the group think, that usually spells disaster, too... The paradox of the wisdom of crowds is that the best group decisions come from lots of independent individual decisions."


James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds , Q & A, 2004

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

For the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 02:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/m/User_talk%7ETommysun_4b0c.html"