Talk:Bogdanov Affair/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Igor has been banned

As a note, Igor and IPs belonging to the article are now banned from this article for repeated vandalism. Since there's a wealth of IP ranges, setting up a block would be ineffective, and I don't want to ban the Bogdanovs from contributing to articles where they might be able to edit with some semblence of NPOV. But I, at least, will be reverting Igor's IP contributions sight unseen, and encourage others to do the same. --Snowspinner 21:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, it's nice to be alive again. Thank you. I presume my encouragement is limited to 3 per day.
Snowspinner, you realize there one or two loopholes that, given his pattern, Igor and possible sock puppets will poke through. --r b-j 22:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how he'll do that. I'm saying leave the article unprotected, revert his IP edits on sight, get on with our lives. I'm not limiting him to three reverts per day. I'm saying he's not editing the article anymore, period. Revert him if he does, don't worry about the 3RR in doing it, just end this crap. --Snowspinner 22:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I question this action. I understand why you would simultaneously ban and unprotect, but I don't think these issues have been worked through to their full and ripe conclusion. For instance, I'm still trying to understand Igor's position vis-a-vis the newsgroup posting repudiating the peer-review which is what the past series of reverts leading to protecting was concerned with, and blocking him sort of impedes that. --Maru (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
He should feel free to edit the talk page, where he ought not be reverted. --Snowspinner 22:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
May I know why Igor's contributions are considered as vandalism ? And why r-b-j's reverts are not ? Has Igor no right to stand up for himself ? By banning him and, more serious, by encouraging the other contributors to revert him, you establish the partiality of this article! --Laurence67 23:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
He is free to comment on the talk page, and if a non-him user (such as yourself) agrees with his contributions, they would be free to add the information, and they would not be reverted. But I point out that Wikipedia:Autobiography provides adequate precedent for not editing articles on yourself. --Snowspinner 00:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
It's too kind of you to let him edit this talk page... so, if some people here wish for the Bogdanovs a completly negative article, they can do what they want ? Unhappily most contributors against them are a lot more motivated than the ones who defend them... Most of these ones left the affair... so what ? Igor must accept the article on him to become a settling of scores ? The article will be written by r-b-j, who suggested as a categorie "excrement" ? This is more neutral and factual ? And he is "advised" by YBM, who harrasses the Bogdanovs for more than one year... that's typically neutral contributors ! And not to mention Maru who agressed and insulted me as soon as he started in the discussion, and reverted me immediatly. So, to sum up : vandalism means "defending the Bogdanovs", so "honest" people have the right to revert any text which would be for them...
This case will be a great example for the credibility of Wikipedia !
Laurence67 08:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


Settlement Proposal

Dear Maru, out of the blue Snowspinner, and all users:

I will suggest you, and now latest Snowspinner, to be more careful not to be the source of a new chaos instead of defusing one....as it will be very distressful to witness one more of the kind.

You took some measures who are unlikely to be the right ones in that case, and it will crave a certain degree of familiarity with the subject and its history to can handle the task properly. Do not dismiss users with longer experience with the case as it was based on this experience that the talk page was brought out. For instance, I received mails from the person who wrote the biography of the affair both for the french and the english talk page, as those din't knew enough about the matter to start with. If I were you, I will feel suspicious of receiving approval and encouragemets about what you are doing, from a person who first heard about this affair for 3 weeks ago, second: heard about it from ybm -the drive force of this affair and person who resurected it from its ashes in nov. 2003 - so not much reliable as an eye opener and arbitrary source of information, and third: who has conducted, since then, a revert war in the best anti-3RR rules, and best ybm styles... I can see that this person is still insulting users without any disaproval from the administrators, which is more than just unproper, it is quite scandalous!

It isn't right for an admin to emit subjective and judgemental accusations toward users, as calling them sock puppet and other insulting terminology, as it is usually to be found in the mouth of the persons who in shortage of argumentation, choose to attack people personally in the best sophistic style. So no surprise that the person who rever you is the same one who used that language constantly against other users before you stepped in, and who was also doing the reverting job as you are doing it now. This is a copy cat scenario of the one we witnessed for exactly one month ago, at the end of august on this talk page. Has this 3RR-one-eyed-judgemental-error-syndrom a cyclus of its own?

It is abusively unclear, what you are trying to achieve, both Maru, and Snowspinner now, and I do hope that a more adequate person will take over the surveillance of this talk page. One with the right degree of integrity, the proper knowledge of the stuff, here physic, a thourough insight in the affair and its history, and a knowledge of the people involved and their characters and profiles in regard to the topic. I think here of Nicholas Turnbull, administrator, with insight in informatic, physic, and expert in mediation.

I can see that this turmoil has developed some serious threat again and that a ban has been issued already, before I could place this request. It is most deceiving but I do hope to see some drastic improvements on that matter very soon.

I have, unfortunately, to aknowledge the fact that your latest actions - some hours ago already - have resulted in a turmoil on the site in only 2 days, based both on your actions and your utterings, and that you have provocated 50% of the users, who had already been harshly provocated by user r-b-j for several weeks and needed therefor the administrators help to put an end to it, not to overtake his place nor create a new source of turmoils.

I do believe that you are acting your best, in the best belief, which you actually just proved in your latest intervention, with your actual knowledge of the facts, but nonetheless you should be more careful to not bruise some ego by commiting unfully justified and unjust actions in the process, and as a consequence endanger the quality of the talk page. I am glad to see that you are now aware of it, and able to confront Snowwhite with that. This sense of righteousness in you reassure me that this is not going to be a remake of the past errors, and I thank you for your clear minded initiative.

TO ALL:

As those arguments for and against have been dancing in parallel for far too long time, without ever reaching a solid ground of agreement, and as references made by anti-Bogdanovians are always pointed at some unclear statement made by scientific-types a long time ago - where most did redraw it - and as all those people of science didn't knew a thing about Theoretical Physics nor Cosmology, which is what this dispute is about, and as the positive statements, made by specialists in the fields named above, are systematically unaccepted for tricky reasons, as are the statements made on this page by pro-Bogdanovian, who are called socket puppets for giving either a yes or a no, I suggest this affair to be settled once and for all by truly and indisputable specialists in that field, I named Holger Beck Nielsen professor of the Copenhague Niels Bohr Institute of Theoretical Physic, and Stephen W. Hawking, from the Chair of Mathematic of Cambridge University.

I have already made the necessary steps in order to bring professor Holger Beck Nielsen's attention to that matter, and would like to know if anyone would like to try to the same thing in England. I already suggested this approach above, but it seems that my suggestion was drowned in the tumults of the fights and was ignored.

I will ask you all to make a join effort to gather your attention on this particular possibility and think of how each of you could take part in its fullfillment, in the best interest of all parts involved.

Let's work as a team. --XAL 23:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)



XAL, I hesitate to address you directly because the tone of this last post of yours is so uncommon to hear (or read). Nonetheless, you said:
"I suggest this affair to be settled once and for all by truly and indisputable specialists in that field, I named Holger Beck Nielsen professor of the Copenhague Niels Bohr Institut of Theoretical Physic, and Stephen W. Hawking, from the Chair of Mathematic of Cambridge University."
Stephen Hawking?! Maybe i'll get my old friend Jacques Chirac to pitch in. Even physicists who are less public like John Baez, Jacques Distler, Peter Woit, John Giorgis, Eli Hawkins, Steve Carlip are very reputable in the field (Urs Schreiber is a post doc) and they do not concede a centimeter that they are not well enough qualified to evaluate the merit of the B. publications, they say they have read the papers enough to conclude conclusively that the papers are garbage. On sci.physics.research the defense of "I/G Bodanoff" to Baez's and Carlip's focussed questions was pathetic. Eventually these guys gave up saying that Igor (or perhaps Grichka) were simply not answering the questions and were merely repeating the jargon-babble. That is on the record.
There are multiple web sites and blogs (set up and used by some of the very physicists I mention above, one with the banner: "not even wrong", and another with the title "Bogdanorama") that have dissected what Igor has said (rejecting it) and also showing evidence of sock puppets ("Professor Yang", "The group of Mathematical physicists", "lehnardt", "Roland Schwartz", etc. - these people are non-existent). Assuming you are not an Igor sock-puppet, the fact that Igor/Grichka or someone acting on their behalf have created these apologists for their "science" is evidence that when they cannot defend their theory directly, they resort to methods that no honest scholar would resort to to try to persuade. They are adament that they understand exactly what the Bogdanov thesis is. When Schreiber wrote a synopsis , Igor told him, "yeah, you got it!" but then Schreiber says that it's garbage. It was Schreiber and Woit that have said critical things about the papers and Igor and Grichka turn it around as an endorsement and used that to "plug" their books. No honest scholar would do that.
I wish the likes of Baez, Distler, Woit, Giorgis, Carlip, or Schreiber had the time to come here and settle this thing, but they don't and, in fact, in their minds, they settled it long ago with their websites and blogs. They are clear: what the Bogdanoffs have published is simply and utterly rejected as physics. They say it is "not even wrong". It is fully irrelevant to physics research.
I believe them. I do not believe Igor, his sock puppets, you, Laurence67, CatherineV (assuming the last 3 aren't sock puppets) about this. The jury is in, the defendant has failed to fool them with his protestations of innocence. They see through it. The verdict is "guilty, guilty, guilty". Let's move on.
Anyway, a French cosmologist has contacted me and he said that he will jump into this here at WP (using his real name) about Monday. I will not identify him prematurely (maybe he'll change his mind, I dunno).

At "that" time [after midnight is quiet late to call people you barely know, specially when you don't even have their phone number (((-:>], and after I wrote the article above? You mean that you intend to ask ybm's old pal, Alain, to give you a hand, let say by tommorrow? And he will surely try to shine, knowing some clever head my come by and watch... This is so pathetic and low. Can't you just be a little bit more enthousiastic about the comming event and the possibility to get this all affair settled up once and for all? Are you not saying or at least pretending to defend the truth and want to know it? So why do you welcome my attempt to make a settlement from Holger B Nielsen and Hawking, and my purpose with it, with such displaced cynicism and own projection of your inhability to do so yourself. I do not think that your lack of selfconfidence and habilities to achieve things, have to be exhibited here, nor projected onto better equiped users. Try with suggestions instead, and questions you would like Professor Holger B. Nielsen to answer to. The goal is to put an end to this gang-war, not to make it last. Is your all answer to my article a rant nothing but a rant? Can't you see that? and the bogdanvs affair is not about being guilty or not of a crime but about rather their theory is valid or not. I am trying to get a specialist in theoretic physic to do that so how old are you to behave like that? Can't you be more come and keep rang? --XAL 16:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

But, in the meantime, you go ahead and get Stephan Hawking to come here and say (or type) what he thinks. Maybe, while you're at it you can get Brian Greene and Frank Wilczek, while you're at it. Heck, maybe we can get someone to channel the spirits of Einstein and Feynman while we're at it. It would be good to hear from them about this matter. --r b-j 00:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The preceding statement will have to be ignored as being completely out of subject. --XAL
Would people put their comments where they belong and not under my purposal? There is more urging matters to take care of than this unwanted chaos caused by strangers interventions.
I am not talking about your friends I am talking about Hawking, I have already contacted Holger Beck Nielsen, and if nobody else manages it, H. Beck Nielsen will come in contact with Stephen Hawking, I thought I would ask first before doing anything. The statement of Baez is of no value as he recognised it himself when he withdrew his comments, but firstly because it isn't his field of research. I want top notch specialists on that case to give their clear and definitiv comments about those thesis. There is actually 2 in the world, I have one of them on the line now, in 2 weeks I will have both. I have been working at it for a month, now it is all set. And that will be it with this story. It will happen in the coming weeks. So be there or be dead. --XAL 02:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Well... good luck with that. Personally, I don't think those guys consider this to be of much interest or importance; they are pretty busy already anyways. --Maru (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, knowing that you were assigned here by Bishonen give the chaos at hand much more sens, you put a mess here, since the 22 of september, are you satisfied with your deeds? It also explain why rbj wasn't bannished and why he and yourself are cutting my articles in pieces with your interventions, thought it isn't aloud in wiki, and as oyur good friend bishonen and prosa/sallinge teacher Geogre, sayed once and posted her for 2 weeks ago only: Do not use this talk page as a chat room, nor your post as e-mail, Do not post an article wihtout inserting a clear line and if it is not related to the subject nor contributing to it, so make your own article with proper headline but do not enfreinge others work. They didn't tell you? Well, you should know the rules before comming here to indulge in your whims and use them on others... This talk page is a real mess! And stop to make changes in the contain of my articles by "correcting" it, and replacing a name by another!!!they are better left alone, and stop removing my inserted lines who serve for clarity and are in fact asked by wiki rules. At last what the hee do you know about those professors time and whom do you think you are to call them "guys", and what on earth does your empty and cynical comment improve the quality of this talk page and give more light on how to achieve the purpose stated above??? Rant? rant rant rant. Were you not acting s the magic wand of the right admi who was going to clear up the place and make things right for let say, 48 hours ago? This place is degenerating for everyday that go by, when not every hour.

--XAL 16:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I heard about it from Bishonen. 'Twas Bishonen who asked to watch these pages. --Maru (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well... I hope my cleanups of Talk: pages will help clarify issues to our (or at least, my) satisfaction. --Maru (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a complete census, but my current impressions from this Talk: page is that pro-Bogdanovs are in the >50% group. --Maru (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats what I call a clear sign of arbitrarity syndrom.

But of course knowing that Geogre, Bishonen, r-b-j, Alain rialezo, were all formed at ybm's speedy teaching at his brain wash institute from day one and even before they came to se this page, it makes a lot of sense, you were yourself teached at georgre sonnet, that you rebaptised and tryed yourself at it, whith subject: a clear anti Bogdanovs statements filled with insults. How delightfull. When a talk page has less than 50% user, (yes I talk as loudly as a Dragon, and feroucly as a lion, but I still count for one person!) understanding really the matter and defending the facts, while the rest is ranting against hugly supported by all the admi without eception, this make it to a 90 against 10 % battle when not a 1 out of 1.000 chance to get our point through. You have to choose between acting as an admi or acting as a member of the YBMs' gang, you can't be both. So take side now, and remove your admi name skilt if you choose to pursue the defense of the yb-ms' pretenses.

--XAL 16:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Igor's block

Let me put it this way. It is not OK for Igor to edit an article on himself in a POV manner. The article is a firefight, and it needs to end. If you're not OK with a solution like this, I will tell you flatly: the next choice is the arbcom. And to be perfectly honest, if I were you, I would be nervous about that, because I can almost guarantee there would be claims about you as well. --Snowspinner 23:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The article is a firefight, and it needs to end
And so you decide that Igor is entirely responsible for that, and that his contributions must be systematically reverted! Do you know that a revert war cannot be done by one only contributor? --Laurence67 00:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I decide that Igor, who shouldn't be editing the article in the first place, is a good place to start, since he's deleting sourced information. This isn't a revert war. This is one contributor deleting information because it makes him look bad. That's not appropriate. Period. --Snowspinner 00:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
And I would very much like to know who you think you are and who appointed you on that talk page? For your knowledge Maru was officially placed here to watch this talk page by mediator Nicholas Turnbull, and this talking is in the process on entering the arbitration comity, so your interventions here are so outplaced as they can be! I talked with Nicholas Turnbull tonight who disagree with your actions. You are not appointed here and do not have to make decisions above the heads of the members of the arbitration comity, so you will be very kind to step aside and anihilate your previous doing. This is not your playground. I do not know what are your motives to act as you own the place, as nobody has ever seen you here, but you do seems to go at it with a revenge. Any reasons who would be worth mentioning now, to us poor mortals?
You have just been elected admin and the first thing you do is blocking and banning fox from a site you don't know and that you were not aware of for 24 hours ago.
This don't go, you are overstepping wiki rules and previously made decisions by other admins, about this talkpage. You are acting as a very unbalanced person and provoking a chaos that wasn't there before and wasn't there as far as the 22th of September. Isn't your role to make things work?
Another very very important thing is that you are walking on my article about a Settlement Proposal, that I do recommend you to read carefully by the way, and that you don't have answer to in your recents edits above, and who therefor have no place what so ever under my article and as a part of it. So move your articles above, to follow suite of your children's fights, and leave the growing up doing the right things.
This article above was the one I was writng and in fact inserting in Marus' own talk page before you made your intrance here, and before the situation degenerated that much.
I did it in an attempt to calm tempers down and create a new tangible goal with better opportunity to solve this dilema than revert war and banning war. I was stopped at inserting my article by constant editing of article from people fighting, and had each time to perform some change of my article before saving it; at the end it was too late, you had arrived, talked like a czar, banning a person without valuable and argued explainations, without warning, and taken over the role assignated to Maru by N. Turnbull a few days ago.
By the time I arrived to save my article about burrying the hachet, heads had already rolled, thanks for you. For your knowledge, you did it at midnight, a saturday evening, and this kind of action will have required the presence of more users, and an agreement between those. Your opinion about the presence of Igor or not on his talkpage is none of your business, but the business of the arbitration comity and their decision, not yours. You will have to be more patient and leave to other the right to decide.
Know your chain of command, and the wikis appointed chain of events before a ban can take place, specially a definitive ban!
What about the other guy who begin this reverting phase all together? isn't he guilty as well or is he your personnal friend in the discussion forum? For if this is the case, and if you do have preferences for who is right and who is wrong, so you shouldn't be here and make interventions as well. You have to stay neutral, but your judgements sounds arbitrary to me, to the point that even your collegue Maru didn't understood what and why you were doing this and disagreed.
I was? Nobody told me... I'm going to have to go ask Turnbull what's up. --Maru (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I feel I should point out two things: first, my name is "Maru", not "meru"; and second: I'm not actually an administrator. There is indeed an election going on about just that here, but it hasn't finished. And since I've intervened in this whole imbroglio before the RfA, I will not be acting in my capacity of admin (should I be elected) anyway. --Maru (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

So what are you doing, but trouble? regarding your name, who cares? and you didn't cared either to rename my César into Czar, so why care? If you don't like it, give the exemple, for if I should follow the exemple of you and snowboard, this talk page will be..exactly as it is now: le bordel le plus total, a mess of without end, a fish marked, a pub in the middle of a big fight. Did you learned that by studying StarWar? Meaningless poetry and contre peteries are not needed here, thanks, what is needed is a firm, objectiv, not selfdenying, and contributing hand. You are obviously outside the category.

--XAL 17:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Why are you making troubles, and tell me why the lone person who support your actions, is rjb- the exact person known for insulting peoples very often, reverting all the time, and having started this reverting war completely ignoring previous concensus made about the contents of the biography on this talk page.
He was destroying the work of people, to who it had taken several weeks to achieve.
You didn't banned him, why? Is he your socket puppet, or are you his?
What were you doing 6 hours ago and why did you came here?
Did someone warn you?
What triggered your hush at coming by, first time, so late?
I would very much like to know.
You will please move your dispute and different blowings up on one another, on a different place, and will take your bad saturday night mood swing somewhere else than on this talkpage, unless you have a satisfactory explaination for what just did happened. You can't ban Igor when Holger Beck Nielsen is going to make an intervention on this talk page. I hope you know who this person is. I do notice that the 2 persons who made reverting a war, and insisted on it are ybm and rjb who are both in very close contact with each other, and in fact I am quiet sure that rjb is the socket puppet of YBM. This way he can do it again and again and again, for weeks, with maybe 5 days break when an admin is watching too close, and never get caught. Why? Because he found the trick already once before: he just go out and contact an admi and say somebody else is vandalising the page, and it work,'cause admin don't have time those days, nor the energy, to control stuff in details. As you did.
It isn't the first time, last time was...the 24th of august 2005, so I suppose that today is anniverssary day for both and that they wanted to celebrate this with something funny, like doing it again, this time to igor, and laugh at this stupid admin who listen to them and believed them, as last time.
Do you think that you could have been fooled?
Convinced?
Brainwashed?
Lets revert those banning charges and wait next week to see what to do. In the mean time we could talk about the main subject, like the thesis and the validity of their contain, decided by the two main specialists in the world regarding cosmology. It is very very strange'cus last time, also, I had published an article with very important information when this revert turmoil begin instantaneously, and it all drown in the noize.
Is it what some are trying to do now?
Strange for a guy interested in knowing the truth that you ignore my purposal all together.
Is all what interest you fight?
Is it why you came here?
To watch doesn't imply the abuse of your newfound power, mister.
And from wiki law, any user has the right to revert a text which has been abusively changed. Turnbull told me so, so Igor's doing was legitimate, r-j-b doing was unlegitimate and a Revert war. his name says it: Revert Jan Bern. In short, a Socket Puppet. It's also legitimate when admi are on their side.

--XAL 01:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been an administrator for over a year now, actually. And NicholasT is not an official mediator- his role was as part of the unofficial mediation cabal, so it's misleading to say that he's been given official status. Also, it's worth noting, I'm the one he asked to send this to the arbcom. I haven't yet, because I suspect that when Igor is removed from the page, things will settle somewhat. --Snowspinner 03:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration comity has absolutly nothing to do with the actual gangs war who is going on in wiki and I demand your immediat removal from the case as completely unable to distinguish on this basic fact. You are of no good at all and I certainly do not wish for an arbitration comity to be formed of people who do not have any conscience nor ethic, nor sense of duty, and who don't even look at the case at hand nor read what the arbitration subject is about, before emitting their opinionated evaluations and sentences.

So rest in peace and might you not be resurected ever.

--XAL 17:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, XAL (or "Sophie" or whomever you are), I usually don't read your rantings (I responded to your post above that ended with the sweet "let's work together as a team" because it didn't sound like a rant), but this was pointed to me.
In fact, I was blocked for 24 hours along with Igor by Ral315, for 3RR violation. but there is a difference: I submitted to the block, I didn't go unregistered and find another IP to post anyway, but Igor did not submit to it. he refused to abide by and posted to this talk page above "Dear Marudubshinki..." This suggests that Igor believes he is above the rules. the 3RR doesn't apply to him, does it?
this reminds me of a time when i was a kid and we were saying "table grace" before our meal. my parents told us all that we had to be reverend, bow our heads, and close our eyes when we were praying our table prayer. well, i left mine open and so did my much younger brother and when the prayer was over, he immediately tattled on me saying to our parents that "Bob didn't close his eyes for the prayer." geee, how did he know?
well, it was Igor who made the complaint of the many reversions of mine and the admins decided (correctly) that he was reverting just as often as i was and the blocked us both. but since the rules don't apply to Igor, he went and posted (using IP address for instead of logging in to his account) anyway. it seems to me that the timing of this refusal to abide by his block was coincidental to when Snowspinner's tolerance for Igor's arrogance hit his/her limit and that's when the "excrement" really hit the fan for Igor. r b-j 20:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

?????rjb or whomever you are, I am the alone one ever in wiki on this case, both english and french who has posted with her full name and adress and telephon number and private emails, twice, and referes most of the time with both ip adress and real name, even before I had my own registration name on wiki, so suck your puppets! if cyber leaking make it possible you will soon get a 3D experience with Maharishi Maesh Yogi YBM dito Jean Perre Voyer dito leuven dito mister Rupley. {Replay!} supra transcendental levitations..... As the following identical chain of server adress shows.

Return-Path: <m.rupley@wanadoo.fr> Received: from mail101.telia.com (mail101.telia.com [194.255.56.74])

by d1o110.dk.telia.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2431E30EB
for <u163301547@ollboks.dk.telia.net>; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:06:26 +0200 (CEST)

X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.4.2 Received: from smtp6.wanadoo.fr (smtp6.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.25])

by mail101.telia.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 908353E8DD

Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])

by mwinf0602.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 2A6301C000A7

Received: from loto (Mix-Rouen-115-2-17.w80-9.abo.wanadoo.fr [80.9.55.17])

by mwinf0602.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 022201C000C4

X-ME-UUID: 20050915130632886.022201C000C4@mwinf0602.wanadoo.fr Message-ID: <000b01c5b9f8$afd00240$11370950@loto> From: "M. Rupley" <m.rupley@wanadoo.fr>

and a propos transcendental, what about this sensational emails' content, source of YBMs' "facts" about the matter, sometime I wonder if PH is that far..? Yes, this is where ybm seek the truth:

________________________________

A propos de l'affaire Bogdanov, je vous recommande — puisque je suis mis en demeure, alors que je n'ai jamais pris part à cette affaire, par la folle qui n'est pas Simone Weil — ces deux liens

A story of quotation marks, "transcendental" rational numbers and Photoshop (en)

Une histoire de guillemets, de nombres rationnels « transcendants » et de Photoshop (fr)

où il paraît, grande première dans le monde de l'édition, que l'éditeur des Bogdanov utilise Photoshop pour produire ses différentes épreuves avant impression. J'ai travaillé dix-huit ans dans le monde de l'édition, où j'ai gagné dix huit millions et demi de francs (en plus de mes rétributions annuelles de quatre cent quarante mille francs annuels net d'impôt), ayant rédigé plus de cinq cent milles lignes de programme commandant à distance les photocomposeuses des plus grands journaux français (qui sont peu de chose au demeurant), et je suis extrêmement surpris que l'éditeur des Bogdanoff utilise Photoshop, pour corriger ses épreuves. La réponse des Bogdanov à YBM prend manifestement tous les gens (auxquels ils s'adressent habituellement par l'intermédiaire de la télévision) pour des cons, or il se trouve toujours un spécialiste dans le lot. Je sais tout de la question : aucun éditeur n'utilise Photoshop pour mettre à jour des épreuves de texte : c'est bien assez difficile comme ça sans utiliser, de plus, Photoshop, qui est réservé, comme son nom l'indique, à la mise au point des photos et non pas la mise au point des textes. Si ce que dit YBM est vrai, si le fameux fichier Photoshop est bien le fait des Bogdanov, lesdits Bogdanov sont des faussaires. Et bien voilà, puisqu'on me demande — la folle qui n'est pas Simone Weil — mon avis, moi spécialiste apprécié, chèrement apprécié, de la profession, je le donne bien volontiers.

________________________________

Après la réponse du berger, voici la question de la bergère
Puisque le berger est déclaré incompétent par la bergère qui lui demande où est le résumé, il répondra donc, sans tartines, dans un domaine où il a donné des preuves éclatantes de sa compétence, la meilleure de ces preuves étant la copieuse rémunération de cette compétence pendant dix-huit ans, nonobstant les dures lois du marché.
Moralité : Celui ou celle qui pose des questions idiotes s'expose à recevoir des réponses idiotes.
Nota bene : les malheureux Bogdanov n'ont jamais prétendu que leur éditeur se servait de Photoshop pour mettre au point leurs épreuves. Mais, si ce n'est lui, c'est donc les frères, répondit cet animal irritable.
From: "Sophie Petterka" <sophie@nostromo.dk>
To: <m.rypley@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Vraie réponse
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 05:07:10 +0200
et le résumé, il est où ?
Vous savez au moins ce que résumé veut dire au moins. Le votre pas, des copier/coller de votre musée de cire, ce ne sont pas les personnages qui m'intéressent. C'est le directeur de musée.
Vous avez bien vos propres idées quand même ?
Vous pouvez penser par vous même ?
J'en doute gravement.
Je ne vois dans votre prétendue réponse que des tartines de mots répétées comme un perroquet répète ce qu'il a entendu mais pas comprit. Sinon il se garderai bien de le faire.
Quand à votre lien placé sur votre programme de recherche je vois trés trés mal comment j'aurai pu effectuer cela d'ici, et pourquoi.
Et franchement, vous n'avez clairement pas le niveau ni les bases d'analyse nécessaire pour vous exprimer sur Hegel, ou Wittgenstein, alors paradez en silence sur votre site, mais économisez moi ça dans vos réponses.
Un détail, si vous me considérez comme folle, mais en même temps donnez à mon mail et sa réponse une place de choix dans votre site, cela dit quoi sur vous, vos sentiments actuels, votre sens de la réflexion, et le degré de vérité et de sagesse de vos propos ?
Mettez les mots á la poubelle et essayez de penser vous même pour commencer, il se pourrait qu'une nouvelle ère commence pour vous.
Et souvenez vous des règles fondamentales de philosophie:
Quand on ne peut définir un objet, on ne l'a pas comprit, quand on ne peut définir une pensée, on ne l'a pas saisie.
Bonne pensées,
Sophie
Général de Gaulle assisté du colonel Berger 193.250.255.97 09:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
_________________________________________

________________________________

About the Bogdanov Affair, I'd recommend you - since I'm summoned, even if I've never took part in this affair, by the fool who is not Simone Weil - these two links :

A story of quotation marks, "transcendental" rational numbers and Photoshop (en)

Une histoire de guillemets, de nombres rationnels « transcendants » et de Photoshop (fr)

where one could learn, quite a new in the publishing world, that the Boganov's publisher uses Photoshop to produce blueprints before publishing. I've been working 18 years in the publishing world, where I did earn 18 million and a half francs (without taking in account my yearly wage of 440 000 francs, before taxes), having written 500 000 lines of code to remotely control phototypesetters for the greatest french newspapers (which are not much anyway) I'm extremely puzzled that the Bogdanov's publisher uses Photoshop to correct his blueprints. The Bogdanovs' answer to YBM is clearly taking people (they usually talk to through TV) for idiots, but there is always a specialist in there. I know everything about this point : no publisher would use Photoshop to update blueprints : it is as difficult without using Photoshop, which purpose, so its name, is to process photographs, not texts. If what YBM said if true, if this Photoshop file has been made by the Bogdanov, then they are fraudsters. Here is my opinion, since the fool who is not Simone Weil ask me for it, as an recognized specialist, well paid, I provide it gracefully.

________________________________

Après la réponse du berger, voici la question de la bergère (after the he-shepherd's answer, here is the she-shepherd's question)
The shepherd pretending that the "hepherd" where is the abstract, he will respond, with few words, in a field where he gave undoubtul proofs of his comptence, the best one being how well he's been paid for this competence during 18 years, notwithstanding the hard laws of the market.
Conclusion : Who ask stupid questions, can expect stupid answers
N.B. The poor Bogdanovs have never pretended that their publisher did use Photoshop to handle their blueprints. (Translator's note : in fact they didn't, but said something which implied this) But if it's not him, it is his brother, this grumpy animal responded.

Général de Gaulle assisted by colonel Berger 193.250.255.97 09:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

(translated by --YBM 14:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)) _________________________________________

Oh yeah its in french, the guy is creazy, but ybm aint completely yet. So I will make a short evaluation instead of a traduction, of this and your comments above:

Ran Rant Rant, isn't it what this is. Remember it next itme you call my article for rants, that you were the supreme master in that field, so don't get so high on yourself, to rerevert the articles reverted by another one first is a revert war and the most guilty is the one having started it. I name, you. So don't blame another user, here Igor Bogdanov for your uncivilities and burglers tendencies. You impeded in others people work and don't know a thing about the subject as you have clearly stated it above. Nobody even wish to answer you. Do you know why? Because what you advance is old tricks presented by ybm, all your reference pages, links, are ybm,s making. Don't you think you should remain more sceptical when the source of the evidencies is the same than the source of the accusations? You do not have the links who dismentled all yours, so it is strange but ususal with new ybm's recruite, they just eat it all rå. That's brainwash. In plain sovjet komunism propanganda, and he should know, ybm is an admirator of bolshevism and of their methods. You are just another "Idiot" in his list, supra (or Superb!?) idiots being those from the scientifical community, like specialists in a field teached at university, the higher the better catch. And someone from the CNRS give points, lots, in the Post-situationistics rang system. You are spinning at ybm,'s tivoli like a rat in a maze. Enjoy but don't blame others for that, nor give them name like socket puppet. Give me name me one personn only who doea not have your point of view in that matter and that you don't have call a socket puppet yet? I think you should stop repeating this word, it make you and your statements look so foolish, you will feel ashame if only you knew it. How many times can a person with a minimum of commun sens repeat herself that way, wihtout giving thoughts of being a parrot or a marrionet in the hands of somebodyelse? Ask yourself the right questions, and take some distance from the matter, the light might hit you. Good luck when at that. PS: Isn't it wonderfull that we all chat on wiki like that when all my posts were systematically removed from wiki for a month ago on the accusation of just doing that? Justice is here like religion, and admi like god: they do have their ways that reason can't comprehend.

And their insistencies at taking side all the time and always the same side, for reasons that the reason ignore... It could have been love, but Ê!, war was also a possibility.

--XAL 17:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

In fact, you hope that if Igor cannot take part to it any more, the article will become more stable because the other contributors agree with each other against him ! And of course, if I try to edit his version back, you will call me a vandal also, and I will be banned like he was !
It's indeed a good way for getting peace : to allow only one current of thought...
Laurence67 10:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Laurence67's 3RR violation

Laurence67, you have violated the 3 revert rule by reverting four times in just a few hours. I'll assume it was a mistake if you stop reverting right now. One more and you'll be blocked. Please read the rule again. --Bishonen | talk 15:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

??? I don't understand: I've reverted 2 times today: one time at 12:20 (IP 195.186.234.183: I hadn't noticed I wasn't logged) and a second time at 12:39 (Laurence67)... It's easy to verify ! Between these both contributions I have been reverted by YBM, 5 minutes after my first one... --Laurence67 16:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, I apologize. I got confused between your IP, 195.186.234.183, and Igor's "secondary" IP 194.206.212.1. This was entirely my fault, nobody else's, I'm sorry. At the same time, I note with some, well, tiredness, that it would make all our lives easier if Igor/Grischka would consent to use the account they've registered, User:Bogdanov. --Bishonen | talk 17:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
No problem! --Laurence67 17:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Now she did. --YBM 23:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"LLL" is a sock puppet.

The IP that "LLL" has used before goes to the same "RIPE Network" that Igor has been using all of the time. BTW, Igor, your argument falls flat. the CQG Editorial Board outranks the referees. the Board is saying that, despite the best of efforts, the referees failed to do what they were supposed to do regarding your paper. that is the whole point of the scandal. That some referees were remiss and allowed your paper, which is roundly rejected as even being physics, to be published.

If any referee's comments are to be included, it should be Eli Hawkins' comments.if you insist on inclusion of more white-wash, I am going to start insisting that we include explicit text of all of your dishonest dealings. The sock-puppets, the deliberate misrepresentations of criticisms of your theory- distorted into praises of it, publically identifying yourselves as PhDs long before the fact (and the fact that you have PhDs now is part of the whole point of the scandal, they are unearned and obtained, in essence, fraudulently), and the threats of law suits to some who have criticized.

Igor, it is obvious that you are not objective and all you want is to turn this stinkhorn into a rose. The whole affair is stinky, but the stink is of your own making.

Snowspinner, can we protect the article for a while to save a lot of people a lot of time? Maybe, weekly, we can make incremental changes that are vetted before inclusion into the article. --r b-j 18:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Maru, it won't kill me to capitalize and I do it when I formally author stuff for "publication" (you can google me if you want to see some of such) and that includes when I write actual WP articles. But, when I am in "intenet/usenet" mode, or, when I code in the C/C++ programming language, I use caps sparingly. I use them for people's names and the names of institutions/companies/etc. (proper names) and other contexts where it would either be disrespectful or potentially confusing not to. I am not sure what your obsession is about it, but that's okay. I will try to accomodate, but if I forget, it's no skin off of my back. You may fix it at your expense, if you want to. Best... r b-j 19:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. And my insistence on proper grammar, spelling, capitalization and what not is because I think that Talk: pages are part and parcel of the article itself, and so what would reflect badly on an article should not be in the Talk: either. Things which aren't part of the articles or would reflect not at all on the article, I am as messy as you if not worse (if you don't believe me, look at my edit summaries or IRC logs for #Wikipedia). --Maru (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
rbj: thanks for your somewhat better edit. At least, the timeline is respected and the quote is shorter. Still if CGQ's negative mail gets a print, why not give the same chance to the positive report by same? It does seem fair.
As to the subject at hand, LLL is not a sock puppet, but a newbie who hasn't quite learned the intricate ways of Wikiland yet, hence the IP posts. Of course you don't have to take my word for it. --CatherineV 20:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
My quick check shows LLL coming from a different IP range than the last Igor edits, so I'm going to, for now, say that it is not an Igor sock, barring further evidence. That said, I am suspicious of a new Wikipedia editor who magically happens to stumble onto this controversy. --Snowspinner 22:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


the odd coincidence is his appearance just as Igor was being kept off of the article. he/she says that he/she is "a universitary in Bordeaux" (forgetting what at that university) and coming from the same "Ripe Network" that Igor does and reverts the page to exactly Igor's version, is suspcious. it is pretty much inarguable (i know that they will deny it) that phony-balony sock puppets of Bogdanov brothers have been used both here on WP and also on some other blogs regarding this affair. the benifit of doubt has already been consumed. several days ago for me and months ago for people more familiar with the history than me.
the reasoning for Igor's version is still flawed the same way and still only exists for Igor/Grichka's flattery. the CQG board is more authoritative (and united) about what belongs published in their journal is than you or me or even the B. referees. if you're going to include the debate down one level from the board, you have to be "balanced" and include Eli Hawkin's evalution. r b-j 23:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The IPs that LLL was editing from, however, trace to a different ISP than what Igor has been using. Snowspinner 00:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


this is a good example of me not reading to the bottom of the thread. i thought i was responding to CatherineV. that's who i meant by saying "you". dunno if i spread confusion or not, but sorry if i did. suspicious as i am also, i'm happy to leave that issue aside for the moment. anyway, not being an admin, i was using the older IP that someone signing edit summaries with "LLL" and that went to the same "RIPE Network" as where Igor came out of. perhaps he's using a different IP now. r b-j 00:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

"Sock puppets"

I confirm what Catherine (and even Snowspinner) have said: LLL is a "real" person, not a sock puppet.

More generally, I find it is too easy to decide arbitrarily that any contributor who defends the Bogdanovs is a sock puppet, in order to have an excuse for reverting systematically his contributions, "on sight", as rbj has written. It is all the more unfair as he knows that the contributor is subject to the 3RR, while he thinks, rightly or wrongly, that he is not.

Besides, I hope it's "wrongly": it would be the limit, if the rules were not the same for all contributors, and if some of these ones were protected from the sanctions at the expense of some others... --Laurence67 23:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

You miss the point: some contributors have brought relevant points on the Talk Page and some relevant edit on the article. Some didn't, they only reverted. --YBM 23:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it, the "cover" regarding the 3RR applied only to reverting any post of Igor's on the article. but it's very interesting that a brand new personality appears that acts just like Igor (a virtually known sock puppeteer) would. you know, Laurence, we don't know if your a sock puppet or not, but you didn't magically appear right after it became clear that WP admins were not going to let Igor post. Igor has used subterfuge in the past and "LLL" magically appears acting like a clone of Igor.
Doesn't change the fact that if we're including any referee's, Eli Hawkins gets to be one of them. --r b-j 00:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
All right, I have been sitting back and watching this comical tripe with an ear-to-ear grin... but then something pushes me over the edge. A mysterious non-native-English-speaking "LLL" claims "I am a universitary in Bordeaux" and sends in anonymous edits in support of Bodganoff-leaning edits after Igor gets himself banned.
Odd, then, that LLL's anonymous posts came from IP 84.100.159.30. Doing an IP resolve (the command is "ipcalc --hostname 84.100.159.30") yields "30.159.100-84.rev.gaoland.net"
That's right, a brand spankin' new anonymous Bogdanoff supporter, claiming to be "a universitary in Bordeaux" is sending in edits from the tourism bureau of the semi-independent island of Åland in the Baltic Sea (check it yourself: http://www.goaland.net/). Imagine!!! All this after Igor was banned. I'm no MacGyver, but I think I can figure this one out. --EE Guy 01:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I know this LLL, I correspond regularly with him! So you can think what you want, but he's not a sock puppet! But YOU want to believe it is just in order to feel free to revert him! Yes, he "appeard", because he saw that Igor was banned, that you were a lot more numerous than we are, and that according to the 3RR we can't revert more than 3 times per day. So it's easy for you, all you have to do is to take it in turns to revert systematically when we publish. Is it the wikidian neutrality? The majority "wins"?
Essentially, yeah. On a contentious and tumacious issue like this, "consensus" unfortunately often breaks down into majority rule; or alternatively, the outside community intervenes on behalf of the side not breaking the rules as much. And just corresponding with someone yields no useful data about whether or not they are another particular person. --Maru (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
And, worst than anything, YBM's invention: the idiom "human sock puppet", also in order to feel free to revert me! This guy's dishonesty is not a surprise for me, of course, but the fact that other people support him and that administrators let him act as he wants seems to me to be more serious than the fact that somebody like him exists. --Laurence67 09:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
'LLL' seems to be a separate individual, very related to "Laurence67" though. The IP is from the french ISP "9 Telecom" ("gaoland" is not "goaland"), just do a whois instead of a reverse lookup on the IP.
How could you call someone blindly recovering Igor's edits ? How could you call someone who entered the discussion for a week (LLL) or more than a year (Laurence) and didn't write even once, even a word about the scientific content of the affair or the Bogdanov's behaviour ? Another specific of this affair is that we have to deal with "fans" who don't care about science and don't even want to hear a word about the scientific incompetence nor the dishonest tricks Igor and Grichka Bogdanov have been proven to use on a daily basis for years. Just like rock stars, they have some (not much) fanatic bigots making as much noise as possible around anyone contesting their idols. --YBM 10:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Rbj's "Objectivity"

Dear EE Guy"

"LLL" is NOT me. I know this contributor: indeed university in Bordeaux. Many people know LLL for years and on many forums. Even YBM knows LLL which is a total different person than me. So please, don't call him a "sock puppet" and try to be more open to the simple truth.

Now, regarding the last version proposesd by rbj, I would like to call you attention on some problems :

Not only rbj does not want to respect the hierarchy of facts but he systematically writes informations that are WRONG in order to "demonstrate", by all means, how bad we are. A very good example of his desperate actions to present us in a negative way is that (after having done more than 50 frenetic reverts without any banishment) he finally had to accept to keep the CQG referee's (positive) report to balance CQG's (negative) email.

BUT, things could not be "that simple". Because, in order to "re balance" the CQG report, rbj then decided to publish a so called "negative" report that he presented as a CQG report on our paper.

However we have 2 major problems here :

1. The Eli Hawkins report exhibited by rbj is NOT a report for CQG but for "Journal of Physics A"

2. This report was NOT issued for "Topological Field Theory of the Initial Singularity of Spacetime" but for a total different paper "KMS State of Spacetime at the Planck Scale". (this paper was then revised and published later in "Annals of Physics")

So you see, rbj is NOT objective. Not only he is systematically trying to impose, by all means, his "vision" of what we did and who we are, but if the facts are "negative enough", he will twist them and make them appear as such. What happenend on this article proves that "rbj" does not even read what he decides to publish on Wikipedia.

It's time for you (all administrators) to realize that it is also your responsability to protect the objectivity of a Wiki article and to establish some limits to the actions of "contributors" like rbj whose is only aiming at publishing an article that would be as negative as possible. --Igor

I made the factual correction. Again, we can leave out the referee reports completely along with Steve Carlip's comments. but we ain't "balancing" a referee report against the CQG Editorial Board statement. the Editorial Board statement is official and they are saying, in no uncertaing terms, that the referees were wrong. --r b-j 11:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, there comes the glitch. Kuperberg, who answered to your own query, wrote: I got the announcement from Wray and Nicolai via Steve Carlip, who is (or at least was) an associate editor of the journal. Steve called it "official", but it sounds like they only distributed it by e-mail, and maybe not very widely so. I'm afraid this is far from being conclusive. --CatherineV 12:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
LLL is only known for a week on the Internet part of your affair
He/She appeared at the obvious call from Laurence who felt a bit lonely as a fan of two fraudsters who happen to be tv showmen
He/She is a sock puppet.
You'd better not talk about objectivity, honesty, and so on, since you don't even know what this words mean. All of you actions are obviously driven by your interest in shutting down the publication of your dirty tricks. --YBM 10:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Igor, we will only increase coverage of this, we will not "suppress" information, as you have called for. I think the next factual part of the story is an account of all of the "dirty tricks" that "someone" has been doing from sock-puppets to deliberate misrepresentation of facts and other's positions regarding your work and threats when you didn't like what someone said. that's next in line.
It's factual and it surely is not flattering for you and it hasn't been included yet in the article. You might want to be grateful for that. r b-j 11:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Dear "rbj":
Not only I am not "greatful" but I will answer precisly on 3 points:
  1. I am waiting for your friend YBM's demonstration of "dirty tricks" we have done.
  2. I am also waiting for your kind demonstration of the same.
  3. I will revert your text which is a exploit in negative and false presentation.
--Igor
If faking the DNS by putting a University street address in the record of one of your "institutes" or publishing a forgery is not enough, we could manage to give all of them in the article. --YBM 12:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not talking about getting stuff from YBM. There are at least 4 different accounts from different physicists about how someone, acting on your behalf, deliberately misrepresented their identity (you know, your old friends "Professor Yang", "Roland Schwartz", and the fellows down at "the Institute") supporting your "work", obviously deliberate misrepresentations of Schreiber and Woit on your books (who are you blaming that on?), the obvious deliberate mispresentation of your creditials on your books (who are you blaming that on? - oh yeah, it's the "editors" fault), threatening lawsuit people who made specific negative evaluation of your character. These are on the record and you certainly lost any "assumption of good faith" when I came across those accounts. You can tell when that happened (when I created the /comments list) with me. That is when it became abundantly clear that we are not dealing with honest people. Igor, you have squandered any benefit of doubt that people might expect to have regarding you. You are a fundamentally dishonest person and the record on multiple websites as well as your words and behavior even here at WP have established that. --r b-j 12:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
YB+M  : who talks about a "fake DNS"? Only you. I normally got an HK domain name (th-phys.edu.hk) from a friend who directed all contacts with HK DNR. I created this domain name and bought it from HK DNR without knowing anything about the fact that any name (whatever the name is and whoever creates this domain name) would be related to the address HKU (or HKUST or whoever). I never promoted any links with HKU or HKUST. Except YOU did! Since you are so good are finding citations, please provide me with one (written by myself) where I assess that we worked for HKU. So the conclusion of this is:
  • DNS was never a "fake one" but was normally bought by us
  • You are misrepresenting the truth (but that is nos a discovery).
Now to RB+J : I have already written 20 times that Swhartz was a pseudo I purposly used on forums. Does that surprise you? 90% of these internet "discussions" are hidden behind pseudos. And you know it.
As far as "Yang" is concerned, I am sorry but he is a real person : a mathematical physicist who knows perfectly well the limits of any involvement in this mud hole. Therefore he took a pseudo to defend us and I cannot blame him. Before writing about things you ignore you better check informations by yourself: Yang was proven (by many internet users) as a real person.
And finally, when you speack of me as a "fundamentally dishonest person" everyone should meditate on your own honesty when you publish YOUR own version of the article where every line is twisted, corrupted, badly presented or flatly false (ie. for instance your presentation of the second report you attributed to CQG when it was issued for JPA).
You should think twice before giving lessons. --Igor


About the fake DNS issue

About this DNS issue :
th-phys.edu.hk has been registred the 24 of November 2003 and expired on the 4 of Decembre 2004 at HKDNR (the registrar in charge of most .hk subdomains :
  Registrant:
  Hong Kong University of Science & Technology
  Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong
  China
  
  Domain Name: TH-PHYS.EDU.HK
  
  Record last updated on 2005-01-03
  Record created on 2003-11-24
  Record expired on 2004-12-04

(this is the real HKUST street adresse, the phone number is fake)

The "International Institute of Mathematical Physics" (one of your ghost institutes) have been hosted on http://th-phys.edu.hk/ for at least a year, you have used personnaly adresses ending on th-phys.edu.hk to post authenticated e-mails
You "friend" Yang (who posted from Paris, especially from you own home) pretended (and here) on Usenet to be a member of HKUST (Hong Kong University of Science of Technoloty), he wrote to Dennis Overbye of the New York Times pretending to be a member of HKU (Hong Kong University)
You answered to David Fossé of the french magazine "Ciel & Espace" to have the center of your institute in Hong Kong
You bet with me that I would be unable to prove that you had no link with Hong Kong University (you admitted then to have lost your bet, I'm still waiting for the Feynman books anyway)
Now the results of some very basic inquiries :
  • John Baez went once in Hong Kong for a workshop, he checked about IIMP and Pr. Yang... who happened to be inexistant
  • I wrote to HKU and HKUST : none of them, neither their scientific departements nor their computer services never heard of such registration, they are currently driving a enquiry with HKDNR
--YBM 15:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
N.B. Igor is now posting from a 9TELECOM IP address, just like LLL did yesterday. Perhaps I were wrong in believing LLL was a indirect sock puppet. --YBM 15:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
At the same time you tried to link you activities to the University of Paris 4 (Sorbonne !), one of the more prestigious in Paris, again by faking the DNS records (for maths-phys.edu.bs, since univ-***.fr is not that easy to trick), is it again a friend of yours who did the fraud ? Anyway you didn't have time to use it. --YBM 15:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


About the pseudonyms on Usenet and the Web

It is not true that "90% of these internet "discussions" are hidden behind pseudos" anyway, but you know perfectly well that the problem is not about using pseudos, but about using pseudos (multiple ones simultaneously in you case) all pretending :

  • Not being Igor or Grichka
  • Using anonymous proxies to hide your IP (even one installed in a french university, then you pretended to have a account there : I checked with their administrators, it was a proxy which had been installed on one of their computer without their consent : this is a case of computing ressources hijacking)
  • Pretending to have degrees at University and working as scientists in several laboratories
  • Defending you work with no other arguments than authority

You are cheaters, liers, fraudster and incompetent in almost any field. You'd better think twice before lying again in this page. --YBM 15:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Here are my answers to your assumptions :

  1. It is not true that "90% of these internet "discussions" are hidden behind pseudos" anyway, but you know perfectly well that the problem is not about using pseudos.
Yes it is the problem. Because I know that you used many, many pseudos to comment against us on various forums (even your own) to "feed" your cause. So...don't tell me that it is not a problem.
I did prove you've been using multiple pseudos on Usetnet and on the Web, then you had to admit it.
As you did before you pretend me to do the same, you were wrong then (and you know it, since you've been in contact with all these people supposed to be me), you are still wrong. Noone care about you know or pretend to know, without any evidence to support it, disguish between your delusion or your lies is not our problem, but your psychiatrist's one. --YBM 17:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  1. Not being Igor or Grichka.

I have already said why I used pseudos against your bad faith.

The fact you said something is irrelevant as long as it is 1) a stupid line of defense 2) irrelevant since you began to use pseudos far before anyone began to talk about your crappy book on Usenet. --YBM 16:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  1. "Using anonymous proxies to hide your IP (even one installed in a french university, then you pretended to have a account there: I checked with their administrators, it was a proxy which had been installed on one of their computer without their consent: this is a case of computing ressources hijacking)"

Really? Are you part of this university? do you know how I got this IP? No. So you should better stay quiet. Once more you twist the truth because you wish to make it appear as bad as possible.

You didn't got this IP, and you know it as well as I know. --YBM 16:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  1. * Pretending to have degrees at University and working as scientists in several laboratories.

The difference between you and I is that I have doctoral degrees but you don't. It is certainly one of the reasons you are so angry at us: you cannot accept this simple state of facts: you could not obtain your doctorate. I understand that it might hurt your "Ego" but please don't make us responsible for your own failure.

  1. Defending you work with no other arguments than authority

If you had obtained your doctorate you might have been (perhaps, not sure) in position to understand what we are talking about. But it is not the case. Therefore, since you do not understand our arguments, all we say appears to you as "authority". Why don't you really study physics instead of wasting your time (and ours and the reader's) on internet forums?

  1. You are cheaters, liers, fraudster and incompetent in almost any field. You'd better think twice before lying again in this page.

Why don't you add "salauds" (or "bastards if you prefer) to this list? Would you be affraid of my response to you?

I didn't have to, since I was quite confident you'll be illustrating that you are. I was right. --YBM 16:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Think twice before qualifying us again as "bastards" as you did many times. Shall you? or shall you not?

You are bastards. Now, why don't you try to address at least some of Alain Riazuelo's comments as well as some of the ones I did when you've proven not even knowing what an algebraïc curve is (for instance), making you Ph.D. a joke. --YBM 16:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
C'mon guys. I know this is an emotional issue, but is it too much to ask that the few apparently rational participants refrain from personal attacks and calling each other bastards, or salauds or whatever? --Maru (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
??? Did you really read that they "call each other bastards, or salauds", etc ? Please read more carefully, you will see that YBM calls the Bogdanovs bastards, etc., as he already did in french (= salauds). And a little above he wrote to them "You are cheaters, liers, fraudster and incompetent in almost any field"... Isn't it a personal attack ? Does Wikipedia allow a contributor to insult another contributor like this ?
Laurence67 22:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

--Igor

As usual, YBM's "analysis" is faked, false and poorly informed.
Here are some precisions.
  1. The "International Institute of Mathematical Physics" is not a "ghost" institute but a real one. The President of this so called "ghost Institute" is the well reputed Prof. A. Jadczyk whose mathematical work with R. Coquereaux started with a correct reformulation of Witten's first article. Jadczyk is one of the best theoretical physicists we came accross and certainely do not deserve YBM despite.
  1. th-phys.edu.hk was dully bought from the HKDNR. We normally paid for the use of this domain name (that was created by myself). The "physical address" was only a legal linkage automated by HKDNR. In any case, it was of no relevance for us and we NEVER used it in any way (nor we represented the Institute at this address).
"legal linkage automated by HKDNR" : absurd and untrue
"we NEVER used it in any way" : I provided links of Usenet messages where you did. --YBM 16:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  1. Prof Yang never was part of the IMP. Baez so called "discovery" is ridiculous. But he is obviously bitten by your own assumptions.
So you admit that "Yang", your "friend", lied at least one time. --YBM 16:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  1. Don't be even more silly : do you seriously maintain that HKU or HKUS would loose their time to "drive an enquiry" on this subject? Either you are extremely naïve (which I do not beleive) or you are manipulating facts (hypothesis that is more likely to be true).
Being as optimistic as you are about the consequence of your forfaitures is the kind of naïveté who could lose you --YBM 16:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  1. And even more silly : your "discovery of the day" regarding 9 telecom!!! You should buy yourself a laptop one day. And you would realize, as if you were in a ferry tale, that you could use any "wifi" service to get into internet (even McDonald's). Surprising, no?
Contrarily to your new "assumption", LLL is a real person.
All in all, I renew the advice: try to document your case before posting poor (or false) informations.

A small journey in the Bogdanoff universe

Since it is possible that some of the readers of this page may be interested in knowing a cosmologist's point of view about the Bogdanoff stuff, maybe my humble contribution could be useful. Those interested in my records may find them here.

Stating that the Bogdanoff work has to do with (scientific) cosmology is a bit like stating that the Bible also has. The Bogdanoff do talk about the early universe, but lack more or less all the basis that should be required for their "work" to be considered in the field of science. I shall give below a number of example which I hope will show pretty clearly their ignorance about physics in general. In order that everybody can judge what I say, I will mostly stick to documents written by the Bogdanoff brothers that are freely available. i.e. Grishka's and Igor's PhD manuscripts (for some reason, Igor's manuscript does not seem to be availbe from French National Reaserch Agency (CNRS) PhD server, so the link points to my copy of it). Igor's manuscript includes four of the six papers written by him and/or his brother. The two missing one are essentially identical to some of those included. The rest is written in French. The Classical and Quantum Gravity (CQG) article, or in fact a preprint version of it is starts at page 56 of Igor's thesis.

  • The first point I would like to raise is that the Bogdanoff brothers do not know anything about cosmology. The begining of the CQG article is very clear about that. It says, in its first sentence One of the limits of the standard space-time model remains its inability to provide a description of the singular origin of space-time. So they take for granted that the universe emerged from a space-time singularity. At present, this question is unanswered, and it is not even clear that it will be possible to address it one day. One of the reason is that in order to explain the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe on the largest observable scales, one has to call upon some process involving some yet undetermined new physical processes, the presently most popular of which being cosmic inflation, which predicts that the "initial state" of the universe (understand here the state of the universe at the beginning of inflation) has been washed away by the inflationary process. So, if these ideas are true, there is just no hope to explore the preinflationary era of the universe. Morevover, there is nothing that guarantees that the preinflationary era started from a singularity. For example, in the spirit of what is called chaotic inflation, the universe might well be an eternal "self-reproducing" thing with inflationary eras starting every time in various distant regions. The pre Big Bang model by G. Veneziano or the ekpyrotic universe are other (less popular) models where there is not initial singularity of space-time. All these models are more or less compatible with observations but start from very, very, very different states: chaotic inflation starts from an ever expanding eternal universe, pre Big Bang starts from an empty contracting universe followed by a bounce and the ekpyrotic model is based from brane cosmology.
  • So, not only making the assumption that the universe started from an initial singularity is very strange (the authors should at least have stated that it was an as yet untestable hypothesis), but also there is no discussion about the observability of their "model". Actually, it is very hard to imagine that anything from Planck era could be observable today (see below), so that from very general grounds, it is very difficult to consider their work as being part of science.
  • Now, if one wants to enter into the details, it is hard not to reach the conclusion that in fact the Bogdanoff know almost nothing in physics except some of the jargon. But mastering the jargon does not mean having an understanding of the underlying concepts.
  1. For example, the motivation for considering an initial singularity of space-time comes from a serious misunderstanding of the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems which they obviously think (this is explicitely stated on Sec. 5.2 p. 69 of Grichka's thesis) proves that the universe emerged from a singularity. Actually, these theorems state under which conditions the universe might have emerged form a singularity, and there is absolutely nothing which guarantees that all these hypotheses are valid in the early universe. All the above mentioned models violate at least one of the hypothesis of these theorems (namely, the strong energy condition), so that it is completely irrelevant to mention the Hawking Penrose theorems when studying the early universe.
  2. Actually it is of no use to deal with sophisticated stuff to realize the Bogdanoff's ignorance. The most enlightening part of their "work" is I think Grichka's thesis p. 47 and 48, at the beginning of chapter 4 (note that the PDF page number does not correspond to the printed page number, I mention the printed page numbers here, which correspond to pages 59 and 60 of the PDF). So, below Conjecture 4.1.2 is written a number of sentences whose aim is to justify that the universe is in thermal equilibrium at the Planck era. All the material here is merely a copy followed by a stupid translation of a book written by Peter Coles and Francesco Lucchin. One of the authors has allowed me to put online a copy of the corresponding pages, so I will put them online in the next days so that everybody can compare Grichka's thesis and this part of the book. The point here is not plagiarism issue, of course, but to show at what extent the Bogdanoff could copy a meaningful thing but without understanding it, so that in the end, the results is completely meaningless. So, they begin by their equation (4.1), which is a copy of part of equation (7.1.4) of Coles and Lucchin (CL) book. Is it really the same ? No. The Bogdanoff equation is \rho (T) = g^*(T) \frac{\sigma T^4}{2}, where CL's is \rho (T) c^2 = g^*(T) \frac{\sigma_r T^4}{2}. CL follow the unusual convention to note the mass density instead of the energy density with ρ, hence their extra factor c2. But this formula, which gives the energy density of a radiation fluid as a function of the temperature involves the radiation constant, which CL notes σr, but the Bogdanoff used something (which they do not define) they note σ. The standard thing that is noted σ is not the radiation constant, but the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, which differs from the former by a factor c / 4... Now, the interesting thing lies in the next equation (4.2), where the Bogdanoff now give the particle number density of a radiation gas as a function of temperature. This is equation (7.1.5) in CL. It reads n_B = \frac{4}{3} n_F = \frac{\zeta(3)}{\pi^2} \left(\frac{k_B T}{\hbar c} \right)^3. The expression in fact depends wether the particles one considers follow the Fermi-Dirac statistics or the Bose-Einstein statistics. This is why the nB and nF (respectively for bosons and fermions) appear. In their equation (4.2), the Bogdanoff use nG, which is logical since they deal with a graviton gas. Now, the point obviously missed by the Bogdanoff is that in the right handside of the equation, a kB appears, but the subscript B has nothing to do with Bose-Einstein or bosons! It just stands for Boltzmann, since kB is the Boltzmann constant. Since after equation (4.2) they always note kG instead of kB, it is pretty clear that they had not recognized the Boltzmann constant and more generally that they had absolutely no idea of what they were copying (it is very hard to imagine that any physicist could make such a mistake).
  3. Of course, this is not the end of the story, because there are actually many, many terms which have been incorrectly translated by the Bogdanoff, which also show without doubt that they did not know the things they were writing. For example, they perform a litteral translation of number density into nombre densité. But this term does not exist in French! (the term is just densité or densité de particules if any confusion either with mass density or with energy density can arise). Page 48, they also make the funny litteral translation of cross section into section droite. The term section droite exists in French, but it is used in geomtry, not in physics (see the cross section disambiguation page). So, again, it is unthinkable that any physicist could make such a confusion and/or and incorrect translation. Even more unthinkable is the confusion the Bogdanoff made a bit further page 48. They state Ce temps doit être comparé avec le taux d'expansion \tau_h = \frac{a}{\dot a}. Here, they just follow CL book, which compare the collision time (noted τcoll) with the expansion timescale (i.e., the Hubble time, the inverse of the Hubble constant, noted τH) in order to check whether it is possible that thermal equilibrium can be achieved. The point here is that expansion rate (= the Hubble constant) is translated in French as taux d'expansion. The x of taux is not pronounced, so that taux and the Greek letter τ are pronounced exactly the same. So this led them to make the confusion between the expansion rate (taux d'expansion) and what is noted τH, which corresponds to the expansion timescale, that is the inverse of the former. Actually, this expression is more often stated using collision rate Γ and expansion rate H, so that one has \Gamma \gg H as a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for thermal equilibrium. Page 15 of Igor's thesis, it is \frac{\Gamma}{H} \ll 1, which is (incorrectly) stated. This is also the case on page 109 and 122. But strangely it is the opposite correct \frac{\Gamma}{H} \gg 1 which appears on page 79... I have no time to list of the errors that appear on pages 47-48, their total number is above 20.
  4. Actually, such a game could continue for long. For example, in Grichka's thesis, what is below Conjecture 7.1.2 is just a copy of this article, page 21-22 (whose reference is given in the thesis, so that it is, again, not a plagiarism issue here). Again, it is interesting to note that none of the technical terms are translated. Both worldsheet and target space appear untranslated in the thesis. Although this is not an uncommon practice in French, the fact that the sentence so that the winding modes in Y are responsible for the elimination of flat connections with non trivial holonomy is missing is much more annoying, since it is important in this context. Also, the discussion page 67-68 of Grichka's thesis is a copy of a paper by Teyssandier. It is interesting to note that the (correct) expression (60) of Teyssandier's article was incorrectly copied by the Bogdanoff on Eq. (5.7) (a copy of part of Teyssandier's article can be found here for those who do not have an online access to the journal). I had asked Igor some time ago whether he could confirm the exactness of his equation (5.7), and he had replied that it was... It can also be noted that Grichka's conjecture 5.1.4 is completely meaningless. It says that the linearized approximation of the Schwarzschild metric can be considered as a local exact solution of some extended gravity theory they are considering. This is beyond stupidity as there are plenty of gravitational effects which are routinely measured and that would not exist is the "linearized approximation of the Schwarzschild matric" existed in Nature. In particular, there would be no relativistic precession of planets perihelion...
  5. More generally the number of incorrect statements that can be found in the theses is incredible. As an example, on can mention the statement that the Dirac operator is a supergravity hamiltonian (G's thesis, p. 49, 54, I's thesis, p. 34, 60, 142). One can also mention that the terms Lagrangian and action, are used improperly instead of Lagrangian density. NOTE ADDED: this confusion is not uncommon in the literature. However, this is a good example of sloppy notation that can be found almost everywhere in their work. There is even a funny densité d'action (action density) which appears in Grichka's thesis (p. 96 and 97). Needless to say, this term does not exist. NOTE ADDED: this is wrong, sorry.
  • Those who are more interested in gravity and mechanics will probably find interesting to have a look at the paper Topological origin of inertia published in the almost unknown Czechoslowak Journal of Physics (page 133-162 of I's thesis). The very first equation is apparently supposed to give some estimate of the potential energy of a given point in the universe. Actually, this concept is not defined in general relativity and in Newtonian mechanics it diverges for an infinite universe. So this very first equation is stupid, as is stupid the statement that the origin of inertia is an unsolved problem in physics. Most of the stuff of this article can be skipped till Eq. (34) which makes the stupid claim that the gravitational force between two bodies goes as 1/r. For what is said after, it seems that the total mass of the universe is finite (even if the universe is infinite...). Equation (37), although containing only very basic terms is completely meaningless, as well as Eq. (38) which obviously state that the Gaussian curvature of some surface is a dimensionless number (equal to 1 here, don't ask me why). The presence of the qed at the bottom of page 150 is not understood in this context.
  • To come back to their "model", their point is to say that the space-time metric is subject to signature fluctuations. One incredible thing here is that this core concept (signature fluctuation) is never defined in their work. It is mentioned (but not defined) in the introduction and then first appears on page 2, still without definition. It can be noted that there is a huge number of incorrect stuff since the very first chapter of G's thesis. One of them is for example the claim that there is a bijection between a fundamental group of some object and its universal cover (p. 8, above (1.8)).
  • The only part of their work which shows some meaning is their work on quantum groups (chapter 3 of G's thesis). However, no exaggerated importance should be given to this work. Although it shows some knowledge of the subject (which is sufficiently rare with the Bogdanoff to be emphasized), this is a rather trivial corollary of some work by S. Majid. One can easily check that part of this work was put by the Bogdanov on the preprint server here, but that at present it has not been cited once (click on the "CiteBase" link to check). Moreover, there are no connection between chapter 3 of G's thesis and the rest of his work. The only place where the results of chapter 3 are mentioned in the next parts of the thesis is on page 70 where it is stated (bottom of page) that their cocycle bicrossproduct suggests that metric fluctuations are possible... Actually the verb suggérer (to suggest) is used 95 throughout G's thesis, much more often than the verbs to show, to demonstrate, to deduce, etc.
  • Among the things which are not done in science but which were done by the Bogdanoff (there are so many...), one can mention the fact that identical articles were submitted (and accepted!) in different journals. It is obvious by comparing the papers published in Chinese Jounal of Physics (pp. 119-132 of I's thesis) and the one published in Annals of Physics (pp. 106-118 of I's thesis). The titles, abstracts are different, as well as the authors (Igor & G for one, Igor alone for the other). Then, only the beginning of the first section differ (just because of some trivial rephrasing), but all what follows is identical, up to the typos in the reference list (in particular in their Ref 18). Actually, one the the tiny difference in the two preprint is that the 24th and last reference has number 25 in one paper and 26 in the other. Needless to say, I have also checked on the published versions of these papers (as well as the Nuovo Cimento paper) which are identical to the two others and their preprints except some trivial rephrasing.
  • Something that could also be noted is the distortion between the actual content of their work and the way they present it. In various French popular articles, they present their work as solving the mystery of the origin of the universe. They also claim that they have proved that a mysterious "cosmological code" determines the evolution of the universe from the very beginning. There is also a very large number of nonsensical claims in their popular book "Avant le Big Bang", the most famous of which being the fact that the golden ratio is a transcendental number and that the size of the solar system was sensitive to the expansion of the universe. They claimed this many times.
  • They show a systematic tendancy to present their stuff as something important and to claim they have done (much) more in science than what they indeed did. Without being exhaustive (this is just impossible), one can cite this interview where they claim they have redone the analysis of the WMAP data (page 13, right column). It is by the way interesting to note that they claim to have proven that is universe was not flat on the (hypothetical!) basis that the central value of the density of the universe is (according to them!) 1.023 times its critical density with an error bar of 0.02, which is (according to them!) due to the fact that 1.023 - 0.02 = 1.003 > 1. Needless to say, these error bars (published by the WMAP team) are at one sigma, so that whether the central value is 1.02 or 1.023 does not change anything to the facts that present data do not imply that the universe is closed. Just to make sure: it is pretty clear that they did not analyze WMAP data since they ignore what an error bar is. So they lied when claiming the performed the analysis. One can also mention the interesting claim in the same interview that the Poincaré dodecahedral space has the same topology that a 3-sphere (p. 13, in the middle), which again is stupid since the latter if the universal cover of the former.

It should be noted that the use of the Bogdanoff stuff by the scientific community is non existent, which can be easily check with the SPIRES database here. No one should be surprised of this. If one really wants to check the details, it is easy to see that the three papers which cite the Bogdanoff do not use anything they made, but just mention the existence of their papers.

Actually, stating (as in the present form of the Wikipedia article) that there was a controversy about the value of the Bogdanoff stuff is incorrect. There was never such a controversy, neither in France nor elsewhere (the Bogdanoff already had a bad reputation after a first successful book full of silly errors published in the early 90's). The only open question was (but only at the time the affair started) whether it was a deliberate hoax or just a bad work. The fact that people thought that it was done on purpose reflects nothing but the fact that people considered at some time the bogdanoff as (much) more brilliant than what they actually are.

The above is alas by no mean exhaustive. As was already stated by Eli Hawkins long ago, It would take up too much space to enumerate all the mistakes: indeed it is difficult to say where one error ends and the next begins. This is the most compact and most accurate way to describe their "work". Considering the possibility that any serious scientist might disagree with the above is in my opinion a matter of superstition or religious belief. Everybody is free to check some of these facts with people who work in the field.

Alain Riazuelo 13:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


The problem being, my friend, that you are not a specialist in that field,

<snicker> (no, it's ROTFLOL!!) r b-j 16:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


and have been posting for over a month in YBM's private forums, and are a very big fan and socket puppet of his.

The second problem being that your extensiv scientifical "evidencies", well supplied above, contain absolutly nothing who don't have been mentioned, and I should say "supposed", earlier, already at the beginning of 2004, and abundently refutated since, and that all those counterproofs dismantled all the attacks from the scientifical part of the accusators, and that it was then agreed that it was more a question of specialisation differences than of direct misunderstanding of existing theories, or gross ignorancies of basic physic. Thats what make Cosmology a specific part of advance physic. Your field being not Cosmology nor Higher physic nor Theoretical Physic, it will have been better if you had first consulted with a "collegue" from the department of Theoretic Physic, before you posted here, or even before you made up your opinion about the Bogdanovs work. You made already plenty of that kind of mistakes also in the french wiki about this case, and no, we are not impress at your ability to repeat yourself and others statements without correction alredy brought by other scientifics.

Links:

http://groups.google.fr/group/sci.physics.research/msg/6cd4ff740c84b2c

http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sci.astrophysique/msg/8a71f677ceb92c50?hl=en&

http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/4fa2fdfa624f6722/669c56784faf5681?lnk=st&q=Sur+quelques+erreurs+de+YBM&rnum=1&hl=en

http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sci.physique/msg/669c56784faf5681?hl=en http://perso.wanadoo.fr/fabien.besnard/bogdanoff.htm

http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sci.physique/tree/browse_frm/thread/8a5253c3c7ab5ae4/c737b21c1f305c84?utoken=F4NLBDIAAAD-55KQrAqsvC7XQgbM6O-8ww-I-AULMJ-v880tKl4IqgYWfkOF69nRg2MTU_ZlqDxkSG9p011IxMJMvLoSwglF&hl=en&rnum=141

http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sci.physique/tree/browse_frm/thread/8a5253c3c7ab5ae4/3201c2e5eac45c09?rnum=121&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ffr.sci.physique%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F8a5253c3c7ab5ae4%2F5dd4af0aaf79502a%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26rnum%3D1%26prev%3D%2F%26frame%3Don%26


http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/8a5253c3c7ab5ae4/540ff3bd08f120ca?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2&hl=en&utoken=ovx8CzIAAAD-55KQrAqsvC7XQgbM6O-8ww-I-AULMJ-v880tKl4IqqEI81y7bnl3NrQIcGjIQcJU6ZMHNcY-sKSigexB1LaK

--XAL 15:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Reaction to 'a journey' by XAL

<snicker> (no, it's rotflol!!) r b-j 16:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
N.B. as usual nothing that XAL wrote here is related to the text she pretends to answer to. What is factual in her response is easily proven false. Moreover none of the links she provides gives anything supporting her point, whatever it could be, quite the contrary indeed. --YBM 16:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

<Abuse by XAL removed by Bishonen>

please, Bishonen, i wish you would have left some of it in. especially where she says to Alain Riazuelo that he is not qualified to evaluate the merit of the B. "physics". r b-j 23:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Rbj, no, that's in XAL's previous post, it's still there. Please see History for what I did remove, it was nothing of such relevance. Bishonen | talk 23:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

--XAL 18:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It is very interesting (and especially unfortunate) to note that XAL who doesn't believe in Alain.R's knowledges and honesty, is the same who admitted, some weeks ago, "having no knowledge in physics, except Holger Beck Nielsen (sic), Stephen Hawkins (sic) and Max Planck" (translated from french « Á part Holger Beck Nielsen, Stephen Hawkins, et Max Planck, je connais rien á la physique. »).--Max.Epiphysique 19:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
All right, that's it. The following line is the only part of XAL's long post which is relevant on this page and not simple abuse:
"You have inserted a title on my article [meaning "my post] and you do not have the right to do so."
There. That line gets to sit here, I'm removing the rest of her post, anybody who likes can consult it via the History. XAL has been warned many times about insults and irrelevances on this page. I've been tolerating a lot of these things from her for the reason that the overall tone on the page is far from the ideal of civility, with some personal attacks by others, too. But this last post does it, as far as I'm concerned, it's time to free up the page for actual discussion. I'm blocking XAL for three days. --Bishonen | talk 18:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
And what about YBM, who has just written to the Bogdanov brothers : "You are cheaters, liers, fraudster and incompetent in almost any field", and "You are bastards" (in : About the pseudonyms on Usenet and the Web, part "Rbj's "Objectivity") ?
How many days will he be blocked for ?
Laurence67 22:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposal of Protection of the Objective Version

Good Afternoon,

As my email address indicates, I am currently working for the french governement and I think I have the qualifications, the experience and the expertise to comment on certain aspects of this affair (the Wikipedia administrators may check my quality on the basis of my official .gouv email terminaison address).

I have a good knowledge of the affair subject to this discussion and I also know (as all people in France) who really are the Bogdanoff brothers as public figures. Allow me to observe that he way they are presented in this discussion is alledgly false and very different from what they really do for their country and the way average people think of them. When the affair blew up in 2002 a non official recommandation was issued by french authorities to some important members of scientific community in order to prevent any artificial or useless discussions. The position of french authorities at the time could be presented as follows :

  1. The Bogdanoffs had obtained their thesis in full respect of the rules currently in force within french University system;
  1. The content of their thesis had been fully established by many reputed experts on the basis of numerous official and detailed reports;
  1. The opinion of the experts causing the attribution of the doctoral degree by the University should not be subject to any discussions.

Consequently the "affair" caused by the email of Mr Niederdermaier for non scientific reasons did not develop in France, so far.

This is the reason why, 4 years later, I am convinced more than ever that this discussion should not go beyond certain limits (I have read many insults and diffaming phrases in the context of these exchanges. Allow me once for good to observe that this is not normal).

In my opinion, the version of the article as supported by Mr&Mr Rbj/Ybm is not correct for several reasons, the most important one being its way to "biaise" and misrepresent the informations about the CQG statement.

The respect of the "contradictary rule" appears as the basic value of a fair and honnest article. In the case the negative CQG's email should be exposed, then the positive referee's reports issued by CQG should also be presented. Each information should respect its dual aspect.

In a more general way, I would like to explain why I intervene here. For all those who ignore it, the Bogdanoffs are known since numerous years in France for their work in popularizing science. They have done an exceptional work as scientific mediators and one does not count anymore the number of scientific vocations they directly caused by their action. The research community directly benefits from Bogdanoffs work in their television show and in their books. Such a valuable contribution to the scientific culture of a country by two eminent french personalities should not be misrepresented in the context of a serious Encyclopedia as Wikipedia appears to be.

For all these reasons, I think that the content of the "Bogdanoff Affair article" should be neutral and objective. Any contributors like "YBM" and "RBJ" should understand that this article is not a private battle field devoted to personal attacks and biaised information. In the case they do not follow these basic recommandations, then I would suggest to protect the version that I will now propose on the "article page" (following the objective version that was defended by Bogdanoffs themselves and many other contributors).

Thank you for your attention,

A.de Parme


this is entirely in the style of Igor. put your creditials out like Alain Riazuelo did, mr./ms. Parme. otherwise your "timely" appearance here can only be considered suspect. Igor is banned from editing an article about him and all sorts of new, unidentified people come out of the woodwork. r b-j 22:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


OH
MY
GOD
Alfredine de Parme, YOU there!
It has been such a long time since the ... er, last time we met, hasn't it babe? I'm so glad to have some fresh news of yours, my dear! I see you moved upstairs, you damn little bugger. This is great! You see, I tell you: enjoy your duties, take advantage of everything you can.
I will certainly not be the one who will jump here to remind everyone your responsabilities and failures as the secret occult unknown silent partner of the Rainbow Warrior sabotage. Past is past.
Anyway, you're still in the process of trying to avoid the French (please, please, please remember English grammar rules concerning capital letters and country adjectives) government (let me remind you the math' lesson I taught you once: [first prime number] < [number of e letters in the English translation of the French word 'gouvernement'] < [number of r letters in the French word 'nourrir', translation of the English word 'feed'] - we had so much fun together!) to wash its dirty linen in public. I bet you're the best for that kinda job.
Huge Kisses, my beloved Alfredine, I miss you and your marvelous Thai wheelbarrow as well. Gimme your DotGouv mail, I shall write you! --ProfesseurYIN 00:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


this is an absolute riot!! :-)
for a while i was really starting to regret getting into this mess, but this moment has redeemed all of the headache and pain in the derrier. thank you, Professeur Yin. thank you very much. (how's Yang doing?) r b-j 00:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I would hate to sound unpleasant again, but I would like to point out that this sort of comments do very little to improve our informations, and do not contribute to the working atmosphere of the page.
To be quite frank, I consider them as much a pest as lengthy rants by cranks, and I expect them to stop. Thank you. Rama 08:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Look Rama. On this very day, I've read messages from two (1 and 2) very closed friends I had lose sight of for over 10 years. This is kinda great day for me. Please share my excitment, I've got plenty of it.
And I can assure you that those people, Alphonse de Bayonne and Alfredine de Parme, are good people. Hu Hu. (Sorry about that. I call this trick Cryptic Globalized Puns.)
They are honest, trustful, and got far much more Ph.Ds than you and me. Pretending they are sock puppets makes me very sad. My heart bleeds sour tears of deep unhappiness. Me Biiiiiiig Sorrow.
Yrs FaithFully, ProfesseurYIN 20:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
What email address? You are an unregistered anonymous IP editor. There is no email address associated with you; I'm afraid I do not understand what you mean by that. --Maru (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry. There was an interruption in the system. I post it again under my registration.
I am not experimented in the system. I am a registered user and I hope it appears as such.
Well, I sent you an email. If or when you reply, I'll know a little bit more. --Maru (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

A.de Parme, if you want to put the weight of your expertise and position to claim authority on the domain, would you happen to have more substential tokens to show than this e-mail address, which we cannot all see here ?

You might, for instance, provide us with your work homepage -- I assume that you probably have one, since as you say, you "have the qualifications, the experience and the expertise to comment on certain aspects of this affair" and are "working for the french governement", which suggests a mathematician or physicist working for the CNRS or some other institution ?

Also, I fail to see why "The opinion of the experts causing the attribution of the doctoral degree by the University should not be subject to any discussions.", and I would tend to see it as implicitely challenging your previous "The content of their thesis had been fully established by many reputed experts on the basis of numerous official and detailed reports".

Thank you. Rama 22:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I second that Rama said. One basis of the practice of science is the ability to question discoveries and claims by other scientists, even when these have been published in reputed journals (let alone defended in a PhD thesis — I've seen enough of these to know that not everything defended in a PhD is good or even true). Denying to scientists the right to criticize other scientists' work is anti-scientific. David.Monniaux 19:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mrs de Parme,

Your message claiming authority because of a .gouv.fr email address does not convince me in the least. For all I know, you could be some low level employee of some ministry, or even simply some employee at the Internet contractor for some government agency. Any self-respecting scientist or expert who would have written such a message would have signed and indicated his position.

Unless you tell us for which government agency you work and in which position, I advise all people here not to take your claims into account.

By the way, I notice that an Amélie de Bourbon Parme was named in 2004 to the "Council of analysis of society". Do you claim to be this person? (Apparently, this person was not so long ago was a PhD candidate in some humanities discipline at Paris 4, which gives her close to nil authority on astrophysics.) David Monniaux 19:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I bet that "A.Parme" is another sock puppet : who could imagine the "french autorities" to issue such a shameful statement, and who could imagine such a stupid story if not Igor ?

This is one of Bogdanov’s favorite autoritary arguments : if it can be proven that somebody have an official email from an university or an institution, so this one necessary can’t be Igor or Grichka. Logical, isn’t ? The problem is that they’re so awkward that they systematically commit critical mistakes that reveal them. Have a look at the edit window : ponctuation marks are, one time again, totally bad : most ponctuation marks are followed by numerous spaces. I have no doubt Igor made his best ; unfortunately, it wasn’t still sufficient.

Moreover, as usual, he uses only pseudo-argumentation that circumvent essential subjects we are wondering about :

  • Autority arguments : “the Wikipedia administrators may check my quality on the basis of my official .gouv email terminaison address)”
  • Diversions : “The opinion of the experts causing the attribution of the doctoral degree by the University should not be subject to any discussions”

--Max.Epiphysique 22:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Max Epiphysique and rbj : I am not A de Parme and it will probably be established soon. Only the "distant viewers" of the affair may be astohished that french authorities would react to the affair. This mainly for one reason : our thesis degree was granted on the basis of drastic rules that neither myself nor my brother did not violate. If one accepts that we obtained our doctoral degree without any kind of fraud, then there is NO GROUND for any contestation regarding the attribution of these degrees. If one allows to question any thesis that was granted by such or such university, then the whole system should be questioned. Since it is evidently not the case (there is no plans to change the system in France) french authorities have interest to protect it as it is. In 2002, I was perfectly aware of what was decided, at the highest level, in order to limitate the spreading of the "affair" in France. Do you know that a little group of scientists decided to undertake an action to cancel our thesis on the basis of a possible fraud? They tried everything in order to prove that we had done something illegal (even John Baez spoke about it). However, they failed flat in their entreprise. The reason? Because our thesis were 100% legitimate and did not present the tinyest deviation from the rules. Since no one could "uncover" any problem (what problem? where? ) and since it was clearly demonstrated that our thesis were done in total respect to a regular cursus, then the little group of scientists had to accept this basic rule : once it's been regularly obtained a diploma (any diploma indeed) should not be questionned. Point. Otherwise any "open door" would lead to the end of the system.

Igor


I have no time to answer seriously : as you know, it is very late in France. I will just make you remember some things : "It didn't take me much time to be sure they talk about think they don't master" (Alain Connes - French Field Medal). A. Connes, a world class french mathematician, didn't obey to the "highest authority of France". If you had read and considered what Alain Riazuelo wrote above, you would have understood that it is not, and that it has never been a matter of "undertaking an action to cancel your thesis on the basis of a possible fraud". --Max.Epiphysique 23:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Revert war

I would like to call for a halt of the current trend of reverts, which are tantamount to a revert war. All parties are advised to seek mutual agreemend on the talk page.

Also, I would like to remind that the WP:3RR rule sets a maximum tolerance for reverts, it does not grant a right to revert thrice. There are policies about user which generally disturb the normal construction of Wikipedia, and I would rather enforce these than protect the page from everyone to edit.

Thank you. Rama 22:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Rama,
I dunno if you're the latest admin to be stuck with this, but, if you are, protecting the page from the Bogdanov's, their sock puppets, and the flesh-and-blood sock puppets is the only way for the "hostilities" to end. Igor (and presumably Grichka) Bogdanov are fundamentally dishonest people who have managed to nearly literally accomplish what the "weavers of fine cloth" have done in The Emperor's New Clothes. the problem is that many of us are tired of seeing the emperor naked but these imposters insist on continuing to "dress" the emperor. Please check out the facts (links exist on the article unless Igor took them out), they are not pretty but they are clear. r b-j 23:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Snowspinner has requested arbitration of the Bogdanov Affair affair, read about it here. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

This arbitration will indeed be necessary to balance the animosity and personal vindication of rbj and his friend ybm. Insults and attacks of all kinds are never good.

Igor

I LOVE THIS

Some days, when I do something really stupid, like run into a wall, drop a knife on my foot, or start an imaginary physics institute, I read and re-read this Web page. It makes me feel so much better. How can people, who straight-faced refer to themselves as geniuses, repeatedly do things so silly. Whatever became of our French PhD in history whose pro-Igor comments were erased by... Igor?

Sure, most people may compare the Bogdanoffs' work to Intelligent Design but, I believe that the Bogdanoffs have proven that Darwin was way off the mark. Otherwise, how could they have lived into their 50s?

I should note, with some naive pride, that I tried in good faith (way back in Archive1 and Archive2) to resolve this POV issue in an objective manner. I have been consistently disappointed and disturbed by the childish antics and foolish sock puppets of Igor or, in fairness, perhaps they are just newly found anonymous friends of Igor. I suggest permanently protecting the article.

--EE Guy 02:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've proposed a variant of that on the arbitration page. --Maru (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello,

I am a really smart official with the Intelligent Office of Smart Research at the United States Government. As you can tell from my anonymous IP address, my smartness and officialness are beyond dispute. I am writing this message as an official notice of the United States Government that "EE Guy," hereafter referred to as EE Guy, obtained his PhD while conforming to the strictest standards set by Bob Jones University, the University of Burgundy, or some other equally rigorous insitution.

This serves as notice that EE Guy's PhD is beyond dispute. Any further doubt is unacceptable. Expressions of further doubt will result in the Bob Jones University invading your country and selling all your IKEA furniture.

That is all.

--S. Mart Guy 68.54.2.189 03:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Har har. Very amusing. --Maru (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm officially a sock puppet of the Bogdanovs !

Wiki's admins are really too funny : now I am on a list of "suspected sockpuppets of Bogdanov", with A. de Parme, Igor (!), and... Max !!! He must be even happier than me about that, after he made so many efforts to destroy them, with his friends YBM and Romnulphe (they created "anti-bogdanov" forums together)...

OK, I laughed a lot, now please let's be serious : I live in Switzerland, Igor lives in France, of course we do not have the same provider, our I.P. are completely different... and you really think I'm a sock puppet of him ? No, you can't... it's just another way to put pressure on somebody who defends them !

Moreover, there are at least 5 people on this page who know me as a "real" person : Igor, Catherine, LLL, YBM, Max... YBM even gave my complete name on his forum, what do you need more ?

So, please, stop accusing people just in order to hassle them...

Laurence67 11:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Laurence67, as you are a registrated user, it is impossible for administrators to see from which IP you are writing. I am afraid that this is not a good argument to prove that you live in Switzerland. And in any case, ssh exists. Rama 11:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
What a wonderful argument ! Indeed, any registrated user could be any other user, as the I.P. is not visible...
But happily, I'm very absentminded, and I often forget to log in when I edit, and I do later. So, look at my edits of the 25 september at 12:20 and 12:35, on this page ! Between both, YBM was so kind to write himself, by reverting me at 12:25 : "195.186.234.183 = Laurence67". Thanks a lot, dear !
But of course it still isn't a proof... YBM could be a sock puppet of me, isn't it ? It wouldn't be a lot more ridiculous than Max being a sock puppet of the Bogdanovs !
Laurence67 20:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
As much as I'd like to fan the flames, I do belive that Laurence67 is a real person... but there are many other sock puppets to choose from, we don't have to let the fun stop there!
--EE Guy 13:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


Wiki Process Wins!

I was skeptical that this would happen, but I believe the article has morphed into something very thoughtful and informative. Vive Wikipédia! Can we please protect the current article permanently? --EE Guy 01:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

i think your cheering is premature for at least a couple of reasons:
1. Snowspinner and Maru are certainly not in any agreement about protecting this article. Snow is convinced that protecting it is not the Wiki way.
2. assuming the Wiki way rules and the article is left unprotected (expecting us editors to spend hours keeping an eye out for Igor's vandalism), Igor will both wait this out a little and then he and his sock puppets and his "meat puppets" will begin white washing it from one little corner to another. since Igor does not do physics for a living and apparently spends all of his time doing PR instead (along with subterfuge and all these other things he does), he knows he has this advantage of time with an unprotected article. eventually, even i will give up and lose interest and get back to writing DSP code for audio signal processing algorithms. that will be Igor's opportunity.
your skepticism was more justified. already "Agent 194" (our latest sock puppet) is doing what i described above. BTW, the article "Unskilled and Unaware of It" is precisely on topic and appropriate. it will find it's way back. r b-j 01:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Temprorary protecting! Sheesh. Why does everyone think I want a permament protection? I don't, already. --Maru (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
well i said "Maru" but nothing about permanently protecting and EE Guy said something about "protect the ... article permanently" but nothing about "Maru". no one is saying that you want a permament protection.
just for the record, Maru, i agree with you that the article needs to be cleaned of Igor's vandalism and then protected long enough for Igor to lose interest and "steam" in "fixing it" to his liking. Igor has repeatedly shown that he is above the rules. he is supposedly blocked right now "indefinitely" for 3RR violation, but we can all see he's just laughing in your face. just get another IP, perhaps another WP account (look at Agent 194 contribs, gee, just who could that be?) and he's back in business. the honest editors that get blocked for 3RR stay blocked, but since the rules don't apply to Igor, he doesn't have to change anything (except an IP) when he's blocked.
i should hope that some of you admins are starting to get embarassed. this is how the Bogosities "play the system". and they play to win. r b-j 02:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I put reverted most of Agent_194's incoherent edits... but I left the ones that were reasonable ("by email" and changin French to German). Actually, I can't tell if Agent_194 and de Palme are Igor or Sophie... shall we start a pool? By the way, I think Baez's crackpot link is a nice touch. Has anybody figured out the Bogdanoffs' score? --EE Guy 02:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

well, "Niedermaier" may be a German surname, but the guy works (and lives, i presume) in France. try Googling the name. I have a hyphenated English-Norwegian surname and none of my ancestors are either and I call myself an "American" (even though there is plenty of shame attached to that nationality in today's world politic). but since the U.S. is my place of residence, I'm an American. John Baez says that Niedermaier is French and I sure as hell trust John's knowledge about it over Igor's.
about the crackpot index, In the NYT article (see Talk:Bogdanov_Affair/comments), their advisor, Sternheimer, said that Igor and Grichka considered themselves as the "Einstein brothers". that gets them 10 points each. r b-j 03:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure half of the first half and the entire second half of the crackpot index were directed at our resident self-proclaimed geniuses haunting this discussion page.
--EE Guy 03:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Grichkor Bogdanoff scores 406 at Baez's Crackpot Index. One should notice this score equals the sum of the IQ each of them claims to have.--ProfesseurYIN 12:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

A banner for the article

Reading the above, I would like to suggest a permanent banner on top of the article so that admins and participants alike do no longer waste their times checking on it every hour and instead go back to their previous, less troublesome occupations.

The banner should read :

Warning : No-one is allowed to edit this article in any way that may be favourable to the Bogdanov. Anybody contravening this will thereby prove that s/he is a) Igor; b) a sock puppet; c) a meat puppet (for definitions: see discussion). Such edit will be automatically reverted and should the perpetrator try again, s/he will be banned from Wikipedia.

And please don't thank me, I'm here to help. (My deepest regards to Professor Yin. It is indeed an honour and a privilege to read your unique, talented and remarkable prose. We missed you.) --CatherineV 08:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

CatherineV, what sort of banner should be put up when you, Laurence67, Igor, or one of his dozen sock puppets edit the article?
Please give me one good reason that justifies calling me a puppet? I've only reverted once in weeks, always comment my edits on the discussion page, never insult anyone, and ask legitimate questions (by the way, what happened to this comment ?). My edits aim at a consensus and are never all-out propaganda. You're only faulting me because I don't bow down to your POV and defend the Bogdanov. You've just proved my banner right --CatherineV 19:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
ya know, i didn't think i ever called you a sock-puppet. anyway, if you're a "meat puppet", i would say that XAL and Laurence67 are a little more "lean grade" meat than you Cath.
You sure know how to speak to women, Bob, lol. CatherineV 08:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
nonetheless, with the despicable, dishonest behavior of Igor and the bona-fide sock puppets he has been using, some recently (e.g. "Agent 194" and "Naudin") and some from the very beginning, it's really difficult for us to be discriminating. i'll make an example of a modern urban battlefield (say Bahgdad or somewhere on the West Bank Palestine): soldiers are getting shot at from multiple coordinates and then, suddenly, right in the middle of this firefight somebody pops in there screaming "Death to Americans" (Bahgdad) or "Death to Zionists" (West Bank). what do you think that person can expect, whether armed or not? (don't construe this to mean i have *any* support for president Stupidhead's policy in Iraq or for Israel. i don't) r b-j 22:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
You know, your image is kind of appropriate. What we are trying to do here on Wiki is as pointless as the Iraki trying to fight off the Yankees. You outnumber us. The Authority/power is clearly on your side. And our generals sadly don't opt for the best strategic moves. We, poor isolated soldiers, are dead before we know it. R.I.P. CatherineV 08:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
what is on our side is the truth. it is undoubtably true that Igor and Grichka are pseudoscientists, imposters. the real physicists know that right off the bat. it is undoubtably true that they have done and repeatedly continue to do blatantly dishonest behavior. r b-j 15:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Warning : This article represents the point-of-view of two entirely self-absorbed, cheating charlatans who've managed to play the system to get phony PhDs but are widely recognized by the greater physics community to be mostly incompetent about the very material they write about.
it isn't only that the Bogus brothers are certified pseudoscientists (Alain took the time to come here and settle that issue - thank you Alain), but it is the relentless cheating and deception they perpetrate to further their aims. their character is decidedly dishonest and they prove it themselves. when Agent 194 just came on line, i was wondering "how can Igor be so flagrant (and clueless) to bring on even another obvious sock puppet? does he not realize that not just we, but the WP ArcCom and admins can see through this obvious transparent behavior? why does he grab another IP and edit when he was "blocked", along with me, from editing due to 3RR violation? does he not realize that not just we, but the WP ArcCom and admins can see that this obviously puts Igor above the law? is Igor so greedy and self absorbed that he just does not get it how his behavior makes him look to others?
we knew that the Bogus brothers had a fan base of at about 3 flesh-and-blood persons ("meat puppets"). i recently found out that Laurence67 is likely a woman. What is it that these three women, not bloody likely physicists, come to the Bogus brothers aid so loyally? i will leave the answer to that to everyone's imagination. r b-j 15:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I would like to insist that this sort of inflammatory comments are not needed here. The subject is already touchy enough without people here displaying their sense of humour, wit and irony. I have already made a statement in this direction, and I hope that I won't have to made a third. Rama 10:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Rama, but I'll choose humour and wit over disdain and anger every day (hence my salute to Prof.Yin who, at least, makes me laugh). Having said that, the last time I asked a serious question, not only was it left unanswered, it was also...erased. Check it here. Rbj will say that the question didn't apply anymore since he changed his own wording. Official became authoritative in the current version - I couldn't find the edit where this took place; the history page is tediously long. Still, the comment and the question matters to me. Rbj argued that the positive reports were no match to an official statement. If the statement is proved to be non-official, I believe the reports should be included. But then, take a look at the revert war going on as I write: everyone is reverting the version with the report.
And, anyway, I don't appreciate the fact that my question was erased without further ado, and I hope the person who's responsible for that will give me a few explanations. Was it because I quoted Kuperberg ? CatherineV 15:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

New Consensus

EE Guy spoke about a consensus this morning. He is right because we are not far from it. However, a consensus should be based on an "equilibrium" of the article subject to an agreement by all parties. This is why (since this element exists and should not be dissociated from the argumets as a whole) I insert a few lines of the positive report of CQG journal after its negative statement about Bogdanovs work. This is the only way to respect both sides and lead us to a consensus.

i put in your positive CQG referee report (which needs a source other than you), Igor, almost verbatim along with the Eli Hawkins report. upon your pointing out the error of which journal he was reviewing for i immediately corrected the journal reference. i said we can have them both or neither. you took out the Hawkins report, and i took out your CQG report.
the CQG referee report does not "balance" the CQG editorial repudiation of your paper any more than a lieutenant's order "balances" his general. the CQG Editorial Board clearly outranks the referees and the board says that the paper should never have been published in their journal. if you want to include "your" referee, get sources for it and we'll include both "your" referee and Hawkins.
however, i personally am not inclined to cooperate (or seek consensus) with you in any way, because you continue to create and use sock puppets and you never abide by the rules. when you are blocked for 3RR, you just edit/revert anyway. since i refuse to play this dishonest (mis)identification game, when i get blocked with you, i'm out of the picture for 24 hours. but you cheat and no one should be dealing with you at all until you come clean and stop cheating. r b-j 15:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Royal lineage of normal sockpuppet ?

Dear Mr/Mrs A. de Parme,

after some investigation, it seems that a person named Amélie de Bourbon Parme is a member of an institution belonging to the French Government called the Conseil d'Analyse de la Société. I must confess I do not know what this council is for, neither the reasons which led to the choice of its members. But the institution definitely exists and there is a member, whose present job is "student" (whatever that means) and that bears your name with an extra "Bourbon". This last remark leads me to think that this Amélie de Bourbon Parme might in fact be of royal lineage, with possibly some ancestors crowned as King of France. It is also rumoured that this Amélie de Bourbon Parme has gotten some diploma in history, possibly under the supervision of Luc Ferry (see here, page 4). Interestingly enough, there is another document which tends to indicate that in fact Amélie de Bourbon Parme is a close friend of Igor Bogdanoff. Also, the above mentioned Conseil d'Analyse de la Société is led by Luc Ferry, former Ministery of Education and good friend of the Bogdanoff who wrote an incredible article about the Bogdanoff's book "Avant le Big Bang" (basically he says that he did not understand anything but that he enjoyed reading it). Whether or not all this is a coincidence is left to everyone's appreciation. So, Mr/Mrs A. de Parme, I am tempted to think that hide-and-seek game is not part of the common activities of people of your rank. Therefore, I would appreciate that you identify yourself properly and let us know under which circumstance you seem to be have been led to think that you "have the experience and the expertise to comment on certain aspects of this affair". If you have time, I would also appreciate any comment about my previous post on some scientific aspects of the Bogdanoff's work.

Alain Riazuelo 17:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Alain, the real Amélie de Bourbon-Parme started a PhD thesis in 2001 on "regicide and regicides under the Restoration" at EHESS under the supervision of Philippe Boutry, as can be easily checked on the French national directory of humanities theses. She also seems to have written a book on Louis XVII. David.Monniaux 20:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

About Sock Puppets and Referees

I would like to clarify one point about the so called "sock puppets" that everyone (and specially rbj) tends to attribute me. I post here under the identification of dynamical IP attached to my provider (Wanadoo). As you know, these IP change very often and sometimes, even if I should still be "blocked" on the basis of the former IP, the new one allows me to edit again. The problem is that I never know if my blockage has been canceled by the administrators or if I can edit the article only because a new IP is running the game.

Now, this is not a reason to suspect that I am "cheating" and bypassing the banishment. This is not the case and you should know it.

On the other hand, I have seen several registered contributors that are suspected to be "sock puppets" of me. This is ridiculous. Even Laurence 67 or LLL have been suspected to be sock puppets when they are known for years on internet forums. Laurence lives in Switzeland, LLL in Bordeaux. These persons a absolutly real and we know them for years. Is it a reason to call them "sock pupets"? I do not think so. As I do not think that one should suspect every post a bit more neutral to be a sock pupet of us.

Now for rbj : the CQG email that you put in the article not only is a "regret" applied to our paper but ALSO on the referees. It is impossible to isolate our paper from the decision of publication WHICH WAS NOT TAKEN BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD BUT BY THE 2 REFEREES APPOINTED BY THE JOURNAL!!!

Therefore, if you publish the "regret" expressed in CQG email, you have to accept the report that caused the paper to be accepted. That's a fact.

As far as the Hawkins paper is concerned, it is out of question to publish it in this context : it has nothing to do with CQG paper and applies on a different article that was corrected and later published in Annals of Physics.

I hope you will understand this simple fact and that we will finally acheive a sort of a consensus.

Igor


Dear Igor,
Some people might consider this clarification to be a chauvinistic notice, but THE KMS STATE OF SPACE-TIME AT THE PLANCK SCALE was published in Chinese Journal of Physics, NOT IN Annals of Physics (you were right on 'Physics', though).--ProfesseurYIN 21:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Dear Igor,
I've checked and reviewed the papers you and and your brother published. In fact, the mistake you made and I gently corrected above is easily understandable since you managed to fob the same crap off on Chinese Annals of Mathematics, Nuovo Cimento and Chinese Journal of Physics. Well, you did forge different titles, you did shift a few commas and you did made, cunningly enough to avoid them going NaN, several points floating around your never ending errors - that is true.
Regarding your comment in the history of this article (Professor Yin should know that spring preceds summer for all eternity.), I'm afraid your statement (Spring precedes Summer for all eternity) is indeed the most idiotic you've ever forged so far. Look: there's Spring, and then Summer, and then Spring again (not the same), and then Summer again (not the same), and then Spring again again (not not the same), and then Summer again again (not not the same), and so on, for all eternity according to you, until the Big Crunch in all likelihood (BTW, that might be a good idea for your forthcoming book: Is Spring still before Summer after the Big Crunch? - suggested title: After the Big Crunch).
how do you know that there isn't an "After" following the Big Crunch? especially if the expansion of the universe is accelerating (maybe it won't accelerate forever). but anyway, that's a wonderful title for the Bogus brother's sequel. r b-j 15:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Anyway I wonder why you talk about Spring and Summer. Do you plan to give up swindling, buy a farm and grow corn? If the hidden question in your statement were "If I want to harvest by the end of Summer, should I put in at the very beginning of Spring?", I shall answer YES. Definitively yes, even if I don't know yet what kind of crop your at. Because, you see, "For all eternity, thou will never be able to harvest before you had sown. And watered." (11th Commandment).
I dont' want to lie to you: the stuff about Spring and Summer I kindly explained above is in fact slightly more complex: there are also Fall and Winter. If you read carefully the previous paragraph about Spring and Summer, and fully unterstood it, you might catch without much trouble my forthcomming seminar dealing with Fall and Winter. Nevertheless I must acknowledge that my concierge totally disagree with me on this subject: she claims there are no more seasons (don't worry Igor, I'll introduce and define this concept in the third and last seminar) because of all the satellites and rockets those "damfool sovietish buggers" (free translation of mine) had sent upwards in the Springs, Summers, Falls and Winters of last century.
Yrs Faithfully,ProfesseurYIN 01:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I hope that Rama, who didn't like Catherine's humor, will get the measure of this endless and useless message...
Laurence67 10:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
... and reply to my comment re: the defunct question, the fate of which nobody seems to care about, sadly enough. CatherineV 10:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Laurence67, no, I do not really appreciate this rant, but it did not strike me as particularly inflammatory, so I just ignored it. I am fully determined to temporary block people for either "side" (what a disgusting word, aren't we all cooperating to one same encyclopedia ?) if they do not behave.

CatherineV, I am not qualified to answer your question (I didn't even read the article). I have come on this talk page because the methodology of the discussion stroke me as particularly weak. You will notice that I did not take part in the discussion itself, and I do not intend to.

My opinion is that if you have a topical and reasonable question, it is to be answered in a polite way, and if not applicable, possibly dismissed with a civil explanation as to why it is not relevant.

I know that a minority of people here are percieved by other as defending a ridiculous point of view; I would like to point out that

  1. people who nuance things are not necessarily unconditional supporters of such or such idea. Do assume good faith.
  2. if they are indeed supporters, there are good chances that they have insight which we would not have; dismissing everything they say without discernment loses material for the encyclopedia
  3. sometimes, it so happens that we are in fact wrong. As a general rule, it is always a good idea to behave in such a way that we can be proved wrong in honour and dignity.
  4. whatever the situation, incivility and derision are not good ways to discuss.

Now, I would be really happy if further changes to the article could be discussed in a friendly way and agreed upon in the future. Thank you. Rama 12:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

________

From the Planck Wall to the Consensus Wall

Reading Rama's last sentence : very good resolution indeed. I subscribe 100% to this point of view.

Now regarding the techical aspects of the article, rbj seems to have 2 problems :

1. The first of his problems seems to be his incapacity of writing exact informations. He presented at least 3 times major informations as correct when they appeared as totally invented to serve his demonstration. For instance, he insisted to apply the text of the referee appointed by "Journal of Physics A" to the article published in CQG. While reading his presentation, one was convinced that the JPA referee was commenting our CQG paper. To make sure that there was no mistake about this relation, rbj even wrote just after the positive citation of the CQG report :

However a referee for Journal of Physics A, who later went public, might not agree

Might not agree with what? With the paper published in CQG of course! There is no other way to read and understand this phrase.

In the last version he proposed (this very day), rbj continues to present false informations as if he had done a serious work on it. An example? In order to justify the use he does of the text of JPA referee, rbj does not hesitate to write that our "KMS State..." paper was published in Journal of Physics A when IT WAS NEVER PUBLISHED IN THIS JOURNAL!

It is only after having rewritten this article (precisely on the basis of the critics made by the referee) that we submitted the new version to Chinese Journal of Physics where it was published.

So it is evident that rbj's presentation is FALSE and shows his irrepressible tendancy to invent informations or situations just because he HAS to present us as negatively as possible.

In my opinion, this is a typical manipulation of facts in order to satisfy rbj's personal views upon the subject. Since he wants the article to appear as negative as possible he organizes "his" article the way he wants (even if it is necessary to deform badly the chain of events or the reality of things).

2. The second of rbj's problems is his incapacity to separate his personal feelings from his "job" which consists here to put together (or at least to tolerate) a coherent and balanced article. But even that is impossible. As it appears in the last version (catherine's today) this article contains all necessary information of both sides : all the "positive" informations are strictly and equally balanced by "negative" informations. Is it enough to satisfy rbj? apparently not. Because he continues to revert this version to put his own view at the place.

If rbj does not agree with our last version of the article, I am affraid we will never achieve any agreeement.

Igor has no right to influence the content of this article for at least a couple of reasons:
first, it is about him and his dishonest and literally fraudulent behavior. since documenting it is decidedly unflattering to Igor, he cannot be objective about that content.
secondly, he continues to behave in a dishonest and fraudulent manner, even here at WP. he has never submitted to an edit block imposed upon him for violations of WP rules. this has been documented here and on the WP:RFAR page. he just lied about the last edit and he just continues to lie. he lies and lies and lies and lies. that is how he got to the position he is at today.
this article is about an academic scandal perptrated by Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff upon a few journals that was discovered and fully repudiated by the greater physics community at large. it is what it is. it stinks. the stink is of the Bogdanoffs' own making and no amount of room freshener will remove that stink. an accurate and balanced article of an affair so disgusting is naturally not going to flatter the subjects of it. r b-j 17:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
rbj, are you short of rational argumentation that your sole reply is a flow of disdain and hatred ? Could you perhaps follow Rama's advice (or was that for the puppets' benefits only ?) and discuss the article ? If you don't want to talk to Igor, talk to me and explain why you won't respect the timeline and logic of the events. Please. --CatherineV 18:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Obviously "rbj" is loosing his control. This is a typical case of "escalade" in insults : from "Bogus Brothers" in the beginning to liers, fraudsters, disnonnests," etc.

We will not accept such and escalade and will not tolerate to be continuously insulted by a person who has demonstrated his lack of moral and honnesty. During 8 years we have worked on our two thesis without any problem of any sort under the supervision of Moshé Flato (Founder and director of Letters of Mathematical Physics, member of Nobel Committee). We were working during all these years with the most prominent scientists (members of our jurees). We remind rbj that G. passed his thesis in 1999. No problem at the time. Our first article was published in CQG in 2001. No problem. In fact, we never had any problems with anyone untill this mail of Tours was purposly sent by Niedermaier to Ted Newman, John Baez et al.

Now, if our papers were published 6 times, it is because there is "something" interesting in it (at least). It is because of their content. Not because we forced any referee to accept them. Anybody a bit familiar with scientific journals knows how difficult it is to get papers accepted and published (and specially when you are unknown in the field). At that time (before the Mail of Tours) our CQG paper immediatly attracted attention of other physicists : the first citation came a few weeks after its publication. Then....everyone knows the rest of the story.

So when someone like "rbj" dares to write that it is because "lies, lies, lies, that we got the position we are today" I cannot let him say this. I hope he understands that there are some limits in this exercice. And that these limits have been largely passed.

i have submitted to the 3RR blocks when applied to me. Igor has not and continues to scoff at such a block imposed upon him and that has been documented. i do not nor ever have edited under a pseudonym (otherwize known as a "sock puppet"), Igor has multiple times (and will likely do so in the future) and has even admitted it. my academic credentials have been earned without the use of technobabble nor subterfuge. my published work (only two (or 2.5) papers live on the web because the Audio Engineering Society reserves their copyrights and will not let their published papers be available from anywhere but from the AES). the physics community has fully repudiated the publications of the Bogosities.
i feel pretty comfortable stacking up my very small reputation of a very small, but authentic, contribution to the body of knowledge against the phony-balony (in much larger quantity) from the Bogosities. and even more comfortable stacking up my integrity to theirs.
it is abundantly clear who are the truth-tellers and who are the liars. this is why i want as much sunshine on this as possible and Igor wants to suppress (or filter) it. r b-j 19:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Both sides ?!

Consensus is not about giving voice to both sides on the article, if one of them consists in supporting a established fraud. Is there any place for the "other side" on Piltdown Man ? Are you asking for it ?

The fraud is not is the Ph.Ds. themselves (the french University manage to give them with so a low grade that the Bogdanov never could pretend to work in any lab they didn't build up themselves - what they eventually did, with fraud in the DNS, later - , what the university forgot is that they could use these Ph.D. to present themselves as genious on TV and popular science book and magazines). This fraud is the basis of their whole behaviour since then (quite a number of dirty tricks are nevertheless suspected during the thesis as well). The "affair" is about this fraud, the fraud is proven by numerous facts. The article cannot be biased in order to suggest that perhaps it could not be a fraud.

Moreover, there is an autoreferent issue here : the fraud is taking place at the very moment as we are talking here, part of the article and the Talk Page's history are components of the fraud, especially anonymous vandalazing, use of sock puppets, forgeries, bloc evading, help from a petty noble chick from the parisian jet-set who knocks around with our two crooks in fashionable parties (for the last ones), all the usual dirty tricks they've been using in the academic world, tv, internet, and so on. --YBM 19:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not calling for tolerance of incorrect informations, but I do insist that people have to be treated with respect.
You can see, for instance, that David.Monniaux and myself have reacted to the arrival of A.de Parme by requiring further evidences of the status that she (?) claims to have, and by isolating relevant claims (being competant in the field) from irrelevant ones (insinuations of a position in the French government). We did this in what I think is a polite fashion, and this user has not been a disturbance ever since.
In a similar fashion, if one has reasons to doubt specific information brought by, say, Igor Bogdanov, he can question them in a precise and firm, yet polite tone. I have never seen gross inexactitude resisting scrutiny in this way. However I have seen discussions degenerating in shouting matches between two very polarised "sides", and recall this as a highly undesirable state. Rama 19:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I am more than willing to establish a "normal discussion" on these pages; however I cannot do this alone. People like rbj or ybm do not seem to be capable to apply themselves this basic rule : the self control. The simple notion of "respect" (something yet familiar to most of us) does not seem to be any of their concern. They will always pretend that "if they are not respectfull it is because we do not deserve it..." etc. Well, I think that because this two persons, we will never achieve any consensus.

As I said in the beginning of this conversation : We did not ask for this article to be published. In respect to any possible agreement, let's suppress it once for good. Rbj can live without it. Ybm can live without it.

And we can live without it.

Igor

It is what I would have said before you began to vandalize the original article anonymously, Mr "Honesty" (ahem). I even discovered the very existence of this article some days later, as most people here did. But you opened my eyes, Mr "Good" (ahem), I'm now quite sure I cannot live without this article to be as complete and factual as possible, and I think I'm not the only one to think so.
Isn't live surprising sometimes ? --YBM 22:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


You could discover that some surprises may appear even bigger.

Fine. As you can imagine, I will not drop the case. Next?


More Information

I added another quote by Motl. The current quote takes his blog out of context and, I believe, that my quote puts it back into context. Also, I re-added the article to the category "Hoaxes." As I wrote weeks ago, this is not a judgement call about the merit of the Bogdanoffs' work. It merely recognizes that there would be no Wiki article if there were not the perception of a hoax (whether or not it actually is one).

Ooops... forgot to mention that I added a brief history of the thesis defenses of 1999 and 2002. I'm sure this will be controversial, but some history and context of these events are crucial in understanding why this reflects on peer review.

--EE Guy 22:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No All-Caps Titles, Please

To Rbj, YBM and al. If you really pretend to be the defenders of ethic and science, please respect two rules, once for good : (i) stop insults and diffamatory assertions, (ii) stop manipulation of facts and deformation of truth.

To all the wiki-readers and contributors : here is the opinion of the prof. Sternheimer, mathematician, the theses advisor of BB after the death of Prof. Moshe Flato. This opinion has been expressed two weeks after the publication on the web of the diffamatory mail of Mr Niedemaier.

Letter from Daniel Sternheimer to Arkadius Jadczyk, 5 November 2002 : Source : Quantum Future Physics

" Dear Ark,

I congratulated [Robert Coquereaux] for being one of the few who have healthy views about this "storm in a teacup". I agree with his statement and conclusion... In my opinion, [the Bogdanov brothers] genuinely believe in what they are doing. They were "wunderkinds", with an extremely high IQ, but they have a hard time understanding that they are not the "Einstein Bros." and that, in our diversified society, no talent is universal. Their real talent is in popularization of science: they understand a lot, can even contribute to the scientific advances in interaction with others, but it is very hard for them to write papers in one of the styles accepted by the [scientific] communities. That is their curse, because they have (for unrelated reasons) enemies who want to bar them from popularization using any means, including finding people who (often naively, sometimes because they feel that the twins' style exposes too much the weaknesses of too many works in physics, or a combination of this and more, including following rumors spead) use the imperfections in formulation to disqualify the twins' original ideas instead of looking seriously at these ideas. On the mathematical side, when they have a vague idea, it is possible with a lot of effort to make them (especially Grichka) write a small precise paper (and even then, in the last moment they may add what they think is a brilliant remark, but which is not so related to the remainder and can be badly formulated). That is what Majid has done, and that is an achievement. You seem to be trying to do the same with your discussion on the web: it is possible, because they have a point, but it is very difficult. On the physical side, they have read a lot, understand in broad lines a lot, do get from it a somewhat original point of view, can even bring in new ideas, and can (especially Grichka) talk about it in a fascinating manner, at almost any level. That is their talent. Writing is an other thing. Their style is impressionistic. In mathematics, a precise painting, or a photograph, are required. Sometimes the picture is slightly blurred, but then someone else can come to the same place and correct it -- once the place is discovered. I know of two Fields medallists, among the best, in that category. In physics, the picture is often, for a mathematician, surrealistic. Some very good mathematical physicists can make it precise, but it requires a lot of effort and a long time. If there is a solid physical intuition behind it, the result can eventually make sense. The Dirac "delta function" is a very good (albeit elementary) example. Their natural tendency is an impressionistic style, which is the best for popularization of science. You do not look at a picture by Sisley from a distance of 20cm, but from 2m it makes sense and conveys the impression. Then someone else can come and translate that impression in a more conventional style. The [Bogdanov's] contribution to science can be looked at in the same manner. That is why they impress so many good physicists with their ideas and points of view. But one should not pick on the impreciseness of some details, even if the devil is there. Rather, one should try to understand what they mean and write it in a more conventional way. Many good scientists (even mathematicians) proceed in this way, like a sculptor: first a rough "ébauche", then a more precise rendering, and usually (but not always, especially in modern art) a fantastic masterpiece. Unless someone else takes a lot of time with them, they stop at the first stage, what for others is an ébauche. Why not consider that as a new form of modern division of research work? Others should be inspired from what can be understood from the twins' writings and (especially) orally expressed ideas, and bring that into a more conventional form. Picking on what for a humanities thesis is a misplaced comma or rather abundant misspellings, does not contribute to the progress of science. Getting new ideas out of that does. As to the formal (Ph.D.) issue, my role was more that of a Journal Editor. I understand the general ideas underlying their works. I find them a valid attempt towards a progress in science, even if I am not convinced that it is THE solution, assuming there is one.

The mathematical part of Grichka's thesis in itself is worth the rarely given passing mark ("mention honorable") he got, even more so if one takes into account the physical motivations. As to Igor, I relied on the community of physicists. He has a point. If referees in reputable journals consider his developments worth publication and if two external distinguished scientists sign reports that there is enough for a Ph.D., why should I be "more papist than the pope" and bar him from getting a degree he could get for the same work in a number of universities? (Not in France, because of the axiom that some of their enemies have spread, that the twins are charlatans, and because they never miss an opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot.) In view of the imprecisenesses, I insisted on the same mark (passing) as Grichka. So did Simonoff, the Jury chair, who knows them for many years and was their first supervisor -- and already in 1991/92 got pressures, which also went to Bordeaux I university to deny them renewal of registration. Simonoff can confirm that point, and I remember the facts because that is how Moshe and Dijon came in. Moshe felt that this was unacceptable a priori censorship, almost a witch hunt. What follows is a natural corollary, for honest independent people. Good luck in your endeavour! I appreciate the effort, but maybe you should wait until you come to France to finish the work with the twins. It requires many face to face discussions, and they are as stubborn as a Cadet de Gascogne can be. ---"

So, these are the FACTS. This is the truth. Once for good, respect it.

ZORRO


Thank you once again for another rambling tour-de-force, Sophie... sorry, I meant to write, "brand-new anonymous editor." There are plenty of other things that the Good Doctor Sternheimer said about the Bogdanoffs' work, such as in the NY Times or the Chronicle of Higher Education articles. Maybe it's my native-English-listening ears, but this letter to Ark has always read, to me, like Grichka is the slightly smarter of two autistic children, whose thesis "is worth the rarely given" lowest-passing-grade possible. But Igor, who initially failed to defend his thesis, was also given a lowest-passing-grade possible as a sympathetic consolation prize. You've been here for a decade, thanks for playing, here's your "mention honorable," please leave.
It makes me thrilled that none of my thesis committee ever felt compelled to give me a compliment like the abovementioned letter.
--EE Guy 04:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Question to Igor about the problem of anonymous editing

I pretty much stopped editing this talkpage weeks ago (see [1]), but I must comment on this. Igor wrote above:

I would like to clarify one point about the so called "sock puppets" that everyone (and specially rbj) tends to attribute me. I post here under the identification of dynamical IP attached to my provider (Wanadoo). As you know, these IP change very often and sometimes, even if I should still be "blocked" on the basis of the former IP, the new one allows me to edit again. The problem is that I never know if my blockage has been canceled by the administrators or if I can edit the article only because a new IP is running the game.
Now, this is not a reason to suspect that I am "cheating" and bypassing the banishment. This is not the case and you should know it.

Igor, I don't understand your reasoning. I have requested you multiple times to edit using your registered account, User:Bogdanov. That's simpler and better for yourself (assuming, as I do, that you're editing in good faith), and would also make everybody else's life easier. I don't understand why you continue to edit anonymously after these requests and then complain of the problems that anonymous editing causes. The problem you describe wouldn't exist if you used your account. Or an account. If there's something you dislike about the specific User:Bogdanov account, or if you have forgotten the password, the simplest thing might be to register a new account, acknowledge prominently here that it's you (so that it doesn't get blocked as a sock), and repudiate all others: edit exclusively from it, i. e. neither anonymously, nor from any other account. Problem solved. Bishonen | talk 03:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Intro and Section Editing

I've been curious about Wikipedia vandalism and how it's handled, so I was reading through the hotlist and came across this page. Since I dislike it when people hide behind jargon, I took an interest in this article, and wanted to make it more accessible. I divided it up into sections (obeying the "three intro paragraph maximum" rule of thumb), and I think the intro now hits the most relevant aspects of this controversy. But it all got reverted out. Sections are critical to help make edits independent of each other, especially in an article that is edited as much as this one--I don't think anyone needs a degree in theoretical physics to figure THAT one out. Can the top reverters and arguers at least come to consensus on these points? Metaeducation 15:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no particular problem with a 1-, 2-, or 3-paragraph introduction. Most people (and despite the new-found revert war) are actually reasonable on this page. Laurence, Catherine, and I have been able to agree quite easily in the past.
--EE Guy 15:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
But I'm "reasonable" only with "reasonable" people, and you are not at all, by adding so many quotes completely against the Bogdanov, by making the most of Igor's blocking ; among others : Riazuelo, who had been threatened by Igor of lawsuit because he had written on a forum that Grichka and him were as dangerous as the "Front National" (French far right-wing party, reputed for its racism). Riazuelo removed this extract from his post, but since this "event" he helps YBM to harass them. So, what a reference ! If you were a minimum objective you wouldn't choose his opinion as a quote. Moreover, you give him publicity, by giving the number of times he is cited... it's very discret, particularly for people who know Riazuelo's great modesty ! "I'm stronger than you !" : the trick is so childish that it could be almost endearing if the context was not so unsane...
Laurence67 17:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


Laurence, we both know that we both fall into the "reasonable" category. I neither added the quote by Alain Riazuelo nor did I add the number of citations to his work. The issue has come up repeatedly that only experts are allowed to judge the merit of the Bogdanoffs' work. Is Alain no longer considered an expert because he was threatened by Igor with a lawsuit over a comment on an Internet site? (Goodness, I didn't realize that Igor was so litigious!! Is there a Physicist that he hasn't threatened to sue yet?)
Is it worthwhile pointing out that the Bogdanoffs' papers have been cited by one other publication (and two ePrints)? If so, is it worthwhile pointing out that this number pales in comparision to other scientists? Which scientist should we choose? Riazuelo? Baez? Woit?
--EE Guy 17:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Relevance of Bogdanov's Method of Getting a Ph D.

Initially I was just editing for clarity, but while I was editing the article someone else added this text (which I removed, and was quickly added back in again):

In 1999 Grincka Bogdanov received the very rare, lowest-possible passing grade of "honorable," while Igor Bogdanov failed to successfully defend his thesis at the same time. After Igor's failed thesis defense, his advisor agreed to allow him to obtain his doctorate if Igor could publish three peer-reviewed journal articles. After publishing the requisite articles, Igor successfully defended his thesis three years later, also receiving the same rare lowest-possible passing grade of "honorable" as his brother.

This seems like an unnecessary personal attack. Whether they got C's or B's or A's doesn't seem relevant — passing is passing. Metaeducation 15:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Mentioning of how the Bogdanoffs passed their defenses is relevant for several reasons. First, even their thesis committees could tell that something was wrong with Grincka's work, so they awarded him a very rare low mark (instead of the almost rubber-stamped usual "very honorable"). Igor failed his defense, but was told he could receive his degree if he could publish some peer-reviewed journal articles. The result of this agreement was six journal articles, a few that are word-for-word copies of each other. Two of the articles were published in upstanding journals. The other four were published in English in obscure journals from China, Italy, and Czech Rep. This is highly unusual for any field and perhaps an indication of the desperation of getting something published.
In any case, knowing the context of their thesis defenses is crucial in understanding why a series of bizarre articles were published, and the ramafications of those articles.
There is no challenge to the institution that granted their doctorates. The challenge is to the process by which they obtained their doctorates. This is not a subtle difference. The information included in the Wiki article should be sufficient to see why there is a great deal of discomfort w.r.t. the process that allowed this to happen (not whichever institution was bamboozled into it, as that was an arbitrary decision by the Bogdanoffs).
--EE Guy 15:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Can you at least make "challenges to the legitimacy of Igor and Gringka's Ph.Ds" section, so that can be argued and reverted out separately? Metaeducation 15:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I think I am slightly misunderstood. There is no direct challenge to the legitimacy of the Bogdanoffs' doctorates. The challenge is w.r.t. the process by which they obtained the degrees. It is still possible (though the probability is extremely remote) that the Bogdanoffs deserve their degrees. However, the process used to obtain them is clearly problematic: Both of their committee members admit that nobody could understand the thesis and, in Igor's case, their advisor says he "acted as a notary," deciding to place complete faith in the peer-review process that accepted some shoddy papers as a condition of his obtaining his degree. Both of these instances clearly underscore a problem deeper than if two hucksters are allowed to call themselves doctors. --EE Guy 15:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I get it now...but I think you can make this point a lot more clear. It sounds like a personal attack the way it is written, at least to me. Something more like "Bogdanoff's academic advisor did not understand the thesis work and could not determine its legitimacy. Rather than deny Bogdanoff's Ph.D, he offered to authorize the degree if the thesis could be accepted by recognized scientific journals." How long it took or whether they were 'honorable' or 'barely honorable' isn't the issue. What is central is that the advisor provably says "I didn't get it so I trusted in the opinion of referees in a scientific journal to grant the degree". Prove that and the article coheres better. With work, I think that could really go in the intro section for the overview, because it is (kind of) THE point. I also think this *is* an indictment of the institution's credibility when their professors cannot understand the students work but pass them anyway based on what someone else says. The credential then comes from that journal, not the institution. Metaeducation 16:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


It's always handy to have somebody to bounce ideas off of... Thanks! Note that it is not unusual (particularly in Europe) to impose the necessary requirement that the student publish papers before granting a PhD. What is unusual in this case is that the requirement appears to be necessary and sufficient, that is the committee based its decision solely on the existance of published work. What took this case from unusual to becoming an "Affair" is that, once the larger Physics community took a hard look at these articles, the work appears to be nonsense and the Bogdanoffs have repeatedly demonstrated that they are unable or unwilling to elucidate their ideas. (These discussions were best described as "like watching somebody trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.")
This is why it is notable that their theses received an unusually low grade... something clearly stunk, but nobody on the committee took the time to figure out what it was. In the words of one of his members, Igor's thesis "showed some originality and some familiarity with the jargon. That's all I ask." This quote comes from a professor in no way associated with the granting institution.
--EE Guy 17:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Well hopefully my opinions as someone who doesn't understand the physics still help. In that vein, despite comprehending your argument, I'm afraid I'm just not convinced that the 'honorable' grade information merits inclusion. You'd need a section to reliably support the accusation, and it would probably still come off as a bit petty. the work stank is the idea you want to stress, but whether the work stinks is given adequate treatment already. If you think it's critical to say it doesn't just stink now, it stank then too and people knew it, you should use direct quotes from people on the committee about the thesis. If those committee members haven't come forward on that, then statistics about the flavors of Ph.D. are a weak support and it's just going to clutter the article. I've bolded above what I think you should try to focus on (hope you don't mind), and if you can more directly flesh that out then I think that would be worth the space consumed...and make this page more compelling instead of seeming a bit less NPOV. Metaeducation 00:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
This is very relevant, in France such low grade is used to bloc access to any academic position while giving some rewards for the time spend (or lost), this is its only purpose. --YBM 00:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not seem to have an article about mention honorable (or even, apparently, honorable mention). I understand the concern that giving such a distinction is a kind of inflation which can be misinterpreted. In science fairs "honorable mention" is a rank below third, fourth, or any explicitly numbered prize. In that realm, it is a way of recognizing that someone did a lot of work but it's not good enough to be considered peer to the work that won. This whole concept in itself warrants its own article, and people can then merely battle over the inclusion of a link to whether the Bogdanovs got that grade or not. If the French rate their Ph.Ds in like science fair candidates that's just plain interesting, especially if the very point is to create a kind of "secret code" which makes someone look credible to those unaware of the award system while warning people in the know about the questionable nature of the work. Institutional dishonesty is far more interesting than the dishonesty of two guys who wrote some wacky physics jargon. Metaeducation 00:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


It does seem like a "secret code." Virtually everybody receives a "very honorable mention" on their thesis defense. If you only receive an "honorable mention," then you are not allowed to pursue an academic career, as nobody will allow you to pursue a habilitation.

Think of it like getting discharged from the United States military. Virtually everybody receives an "Honorable Discharge," even if they did nothing honorable. It's very rare but it is possible to receive a "General Discharge." This means you messed up badly when you were in the military, but you weren't convicted of anything (do you see the parallels to the French system yet?). If you received a bad-conduct discharge, then you were probably court martialed. Lynndie England will receive a Dishonorable Discharge when she gets out of prison. --EE Guy 00:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Concerning Mention Honorable and the real meaning of it

I can't believe it! This story of how they got their doctor degree has been discussed before, and agreed upon, a long time ago. That was before EE guy time but anyway, the same on different forums, and not earlier than this august month. And to clear out all doubts, thought it is a far out dream, and as Igor has already pointd it out a few articles above, which mean only a few hours before you came with your extract, mention honorable is a very honorable mention who is seldom given to a thesis and mean that the work is considered as being very good. Do you get it now? Or shall we absolutely repeat this, let say, 1000 times before it get in to the correct part of your brain system? This being already a repetition. But if you were less eager to get all your informations on that matter at the same source:YBM own edits and promotion web side, it will help a lot. I have already in august presented the prooves that the article you use above as a proof is nothing but a homemade text created by ybm who has absolutely no knowledge of the doctorat point system or who did it on purpose. Both well cooresponding to ybms' untrustworthy selvmade image. Yourself could get some indormations about this fact, instead of echooing what you read like "I knew it too and agreed" when in fact all of those data are rants without contact to reality. Shall I sign zorro or shall I put your own name? afterall what the hell shall I have my own signature when anyway it is freely accused for being another one at anytime and for anything? Get your vocabulary straight, your source of information straight, and give me a well deserved excuse for all the numerous timessssss where you have insulted me. I make progress happen, you sylte on it like a parasite and want a medailj for it? Get real, you are at best paparazy, at worse a middle levelheaded ingeneeer trying his joker on wiki.

--XAL 18:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


I love you because you brighten an otherwise drab day. As you correctly point out, the "story of how they got their doctor degree has been discussed before, and agreed upon, a long time ago." The timeline and descriptions in the previous section are consistent with the published accounts. As to whether "Mention Honorable" is rarely given, or the lowest-possible passing grade, I shall defer to the person who conferred the grade to the Bogdanoffs: Prof. Sternheimer. He refers to the grade as "rarely given" and "mention honorable" is, in fact, the lowest-possible passing grade for a doctoral thesis in France.
So I remain somewhat confused by your comments.
--EE Guy 18:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

No its not and rarely given refer to the fact that only a few doctors can present any mention at all on their paper and not that it is a low or a high one! You pass the test and maybe, you also get a mention, which is a reward on itself. So check your info and the management of it as well. My data are very well accurate and you can found proofs of it all in fr.physic as early as june 2004, where several Ph.D and other universitarians came with their witness about this fact and even a professor, so drink it with an Ibuprofen and get your argumentation together. You are building on an assumption, and assumptions have the inherent flaw to fall down and track their authors with them. You are down now. What about the excuses? would you be as incredibly courageous to bring your apologize to everyones knowledge, when you were so bold at dismissing the facts and the necessary research of sources without which research is nothing but wild guess? Oh saving your dull day! I knew since long that without my breaking points this page is doom to die. Sorry to can't save you honor as well, if you had any to begin with, mr zorro. I baptized you, and ee anonymous and ybm and max, incredible don't you think, so zorro, no, Napoleon Bonaparte or jeanne d'Arc, to the limit, but remmeber that I am above you dull standards, and noone hasstill been able to proove me wrong. What a defeat. Oh waterloo! the alone thing you can do is block me out. Ha HA HA! you can't tolarate truth, and covering your ears ain't going to change the outcome and it wont even be on wiki, believe me.. HA HA HA!

--XAL 19:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


Sometimes, mon petit chou-chou, I have to try hard -- really hard -- to understand some of your posts but, despite your never-fail ability to make me smile, I must confess that I could not understand what on earth you just wrote. Could you try again, ma petite?
xoxoxoxo --EE Guy 19:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You will have to try harder little boy, real harder, using memory, rereading of previous post here, and aligning data. Don't miss your next appointment, you know what I do after the second time ((-:

Hannibal Lecter --XAL 20:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


At your request, mon allumeuse, I tried "real harder" but I just couldn't make any sense of the post. Specifically, would you mind marking where one thought ends and another one begins? Perhaps it would be more helpful if you just tell me where the first one begins. Bisou, ma poupée!
--EE Guy 21:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


EE Guy,

Thank you for your invitation to discuss the merits of citations.

In the first place, I would say that your reconstruction of the article has improved (by its structure) significantly the clarity and the acuracy of it.

Now, the problem of citations remains.

Because, I think that you will admit that the very negative opinions of M&M Baez, Riazuelo and Woit does not respect the "contradictory rule" and therefore the "equilibrium" of the article.

In the case we would not have any positive opinions about our work, fine. And there would not never been any "Bogdanoff Affair".

But the reality is different.

We got many positive statements, analysis, comments, reports, etc, before and even after the disastrous mail of Niedermaier.

Consequently, if you quote negative comments made by M&M Baez, Riazuelo or Woit (who are NOT EXPERTS OF OUR FIELD you should also accept positive opinions given, in writing, by reputed independent experts about our thesis or our papers.

I do not think that such an "avalanche" of "pro and anti" quotations would improve the article. On the contrary, I think it will only make it very confusing.

What do you think?

Igor


I appreciate your taking the time to explain the rationale behind the edits. I have no problems with the changes to the quotes section of the article. I think the remaining quotes in the "Implications for the Peer-Review System" section sufficiently capture the context, in conjunction with the external links.
(Try to heed Bishonen's warning about anonymous posting though.)
--EE Guy 21:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

And what about you? the warning was specifically created to your intention. Don't you think? Try to think, you might get used to it, extinguisher. --XAL 22:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


Hmmmm, unhappily I must again employ poetic license in translating your previous post. If you mean that Bishonen warned about anonymous posting because I post anonymously, then I'm confused, mon cocot. If you mean that I support the warning because I prefer people not post anonymously, then you've got me, ma pépée. Ne pas me peloter... Bisou!
--EE Guy 23:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


I wonder why XAL is posting here, and there so much obvious lies, when checking how deeply they are is only a matter of a two minutes check. Masochism ? --YBM 00:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


I don't know, but I am running out of French terms of endearment.... All I've got left is "ma puce."
--EE Guy 00:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Do your two minutes check before drawning your superficialities here ybm, if they are obvious why do you mention their existencies, but if you mean disturbing, tell us why, and come here with your proofs. I don't have seen them yet, only pretences and merely allegations.

You are anonymous EE, meaning you are more than one. How come the same persons who exhult of morality on disclaiming abuse of inexisting socket puppet, are the same who create them, and publically applause their own?. Like doctor Yin for instance. Or EE guysss.

You and YBM have never been able to proof me wrong, but I have dismantled ALL your assertions, and several times in several places and occasions. You are not searching for what is true or right, but for your own justification and gratification.

I am mostly old fashion sadistic, so watch for your head, even if previous attempts have prooven that to be the most difficult part of your anatomy to reach. Follow YBMs' exemple, he is the most obedient and diciplined subject in my harem of masochists.

--XAL 01:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


Oh... I see. Your refreshing approach to logic brings smile to my face and makes my eyelids flutter. The "EE" in my name stands for "Electrical Engineer." As much as you may desire it, mon allumeuse, there will always only be just one of me. Bisou!

--EE Guy 04:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
XAL> You're insane. --ProfesseurYIN 11:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you getting completely senile? I am the one who gave you The denomination "EE Guy" because you didn't sign your first post, but did explain in it that you were an electrical engineer. The same for EE Anonymous, whom I adress my answer to his first post here, as he didn't sign his post but mentioned to be an electrical engineer, so in my answer I started by "Dear EE Anonymous" and in my answer to you I begin with " Dear EE guy", which name you both kept, and thats how I am the one who Baptised you both! <:-P There is plenty of masochist running around in wiki, and remember that the people around the fire stairing at the shadows dancing on the walls of the cave, had also fluttering eyeslids, in Platons' Cave. :-P If you want to call me allumeuse so state your full name and adress, so that I can give you en ordentlig omgang, I'll break your neck and make you black and blue and it want be because of a gaz explosion. I am black belt in Tai Kwendoo so watch for sparks to fly! If you can't meet the consequences so keep your mouth shut. Come out to fight or shut up! We will see if you have mouth enough to make bisous or to spell it straight after that! On the other hand you can't know if my real name isn't Richard, age 52, and gay. Do you still feel like kissing?

You can't mesure my sense of logic with yours, as one can't compare a satellite with a parasol. They have completely different purpose. You hide from light and I seek it and live on it. Your radio can't match with my receiving unit system either. Stay come in the shadow, and wait for me to bring the news, you can't do else anyway!

If you really were an electrical engineer, one could hope that you will have been able to switch your own fuse long ago, and upgrade the system for a more up to date one. So if you are one, you must be of the lazy kind. The kind who forgot the basic. Sutter den on ybm, he's got plenty of good old fashion AC strøm, since the time he waited. You might keep your dress on.

Back to your chickens, you stated:"It does seem like a "secret code." Virtually everybody receives a "very honorable mention" on their thesis defense. If you only receive an "honorable mention," then you are not allowed to pursue an academic career, as nobody will allow you to pursue a habilitation." Well a discharge is not an academical mention, and has nothing to do with it, and we are not in the US, even less in the US navy, so get your pants straight. You made a major mistake by assuming to much and verifying nothing. Your logical sens seems out of function in your statement above. How can you just bring the name discharge in to it, what has it to do with a mention honorable in a doktor grad? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. We still all wait for you to bring your apologize, for mistaking and bringing the name and honour of a famous and respected member of the academy in shame. On your feet soldier! show respect to your superiors, and mind your rang! You have managed to avoid the question for many hours as always, what with some real stuff? You don't seems to feel like talking about the Mention Honorable anymore. Did you get stuck? There is words who can't be compared without making a huge misunderstanding, and a joke of one self, like condens water and condensator, I am sure you still remember that from your basics. In fact they better not come in contact with each other at all, it could burn the circuit or reduce its effficiency. And God know if you should know! :-P

--XAL 05:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Given that 90% of your posts are meaningless there is little point if prooving them wrong. The rest has indeed been proven wrong, most of the times by following the very links you randomly add to support your divagations.
For instance you contested several times the reality of the usurpation of Hong Kong University name and street address (and academic support) by Igor and Grichaka when they bought the th-phys.edu.hk domain. When I asked you the reason why you believed so, you provide a link to a completely unrelated Usenet discussion. Another forgery on your own is when you pretend to quote me writing "I don't care if I am wrong, and I don't care about what you say, I will always stand the same things no matter what!" in June 2004. You are either very confused about what a proof or a reference could be (did you notice that noone, even in the pro-Bogdanov side, never followed any of your rants ?), or lying deliberately. --YBM 13:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a very bad excuse that you have been serving to unknowing people for far too long, and who should be applied to your own post as they are a meaningless repetition of your previous lies. My links have always been right and what you state above is just a very poor attempt to avoid the question, and avoid to have to give explainations for your previous assertions on the matter that I did prooved being wrong. As for your rage of angryness when Laurent prooved to all that their was mo substance in any of your chief of accusations against the Bogdanov, you did say the text that you most accomodately have stated above, and I thank you for that. I found it without help of the links, so theres is no doubt about that any serious personn will also be able to read it with the help of my links. Are you afraid to loose control?. For your knowledge I have NEVER posted in any pro bogdanov site, so again one of your home made story, I have posted in your forums where you were so scared to loose face that you insisted for others to don't answer to my post, as you did it on wiki exactly one week later... And also banished me from your forum because of my post on..wiki!!?? less than a week before you ask all here to ignore my post, and at the same time too as you published on Usenet a rant stating that I had lies about my banishement from your site and was a kind of lunatic. Well interesting, as all can read on that forum that you did banished me and the date of it.. also the fact that you remake that forum subject by subject, a copy conforme of it, only 2 days after my banishment from it, don't ask me whY?, without resons but the fact that i could then freely enter on that one without you having to loose your face by making an apologize and letting me in again. You called that one Epiphysique -again - You are just trying to use other people ignorance about those facts to build up lies no matter how little and insignificant or how big. If something can be use to artificially discredit your opponent you will do it. As I have seen it very often. You can't stop pretending that my links are useless, then why bother? and even serve YOUR purpose, Why Bother then?! and that my posts here are useless and meaningless, (like those of yin and EEguy?) why bother then?. I think you mention them because you see them as a threat to the imperium of lies you have been building up. It doesn't help to say the other is blind or insane, or asleep, or didn't get the good enough mention, or other stuffs like "do not look at her links! they are of no value anyway! look away! look away!" specially on an english website, where very few will be able to understand what is stated on the french scientifical site I refer to, but when those references were given on wiki french, you hide for the woods, and when those same links were given on your forum, you first enabled them, and then removed a generous part of them, to be replaced with your own links stating the opposit... So this alone must be the proof that I aint saying so meaningless things at all, perhaps even the most meaningfull of them all.

Whatch for editing in the middle of my or any other users text. Make your own edit instead of cutting in the middle of my text, it is disturbing and tirering for the reader, and is not aloud on wiki.

--XAL 14:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Flooding the page with paranoid and schizophrenic rant will be of no help to you. I gave you in three lines, two samples of your lies. You failed to adress them, what would have been easy to you if they weren't lies. Quite the contrary : I strongly recommand to follow the links you provide here and elsewhere, as they lead to many proof of the dishonesty and incompetence of the Bogdanovs. --YBM 15:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

On the opposit, I adressed them as I have always done, and as you always do you just deny the fact by simply ignore the prooves you are presented to, and comming back to point 1, no matter the answer, as if no answer had been emitted, by some David Copperfields magic the prooves are there, now they arn't. Prooving this way that your sentence taken from a sample of exchanges on fr. phys. from june 2004, and as a conclusion to all the evidencies presented there of your mistakes, you sayed " Idon't care what you say and what evidencies you present me to, I will keep saying the same stuff" which you indeed have done ever since. Congratulation for keeping your word in that matter. Watch your language thought, You cannot keep calling people "hysterical, schizophrenics, paranoïd, and lier" just because they have undubitably prooved you wrong and dismantled your argumention in the best Sherlock Holmes spirit and Wittgensteins methods. Speaking of dishonnesty, I think you know enough about it to open a class or even your own academy about it, as for incompetences even if it is hard, you shall remember that you are the one which thesis was evaluated as non acceptable after the first year (!) and it says long about the level, and it being in the field of language, you cant hammer up with specialists in cosmology in their own field, so stay on the subject of informatic, or aknowledge your incompetencies and dishonnesty in the area that matters here.

--XAL 18:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not because you pretend to have addressed these points without any reference, that you did it. It's not by forging quotes that you make me write what I've never written. --YBM 19:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC

I have adressed them with references, but where and when did you ever adress the questions asked to you and the evidencies put in front of your noize that you are wrong and came with references who weren't forged by your doing nor signed by you? Never. All the links you ever gave had your name on it. No objectiv nor impartial judgement are to be found in what you have to offer. You just insult and make pretenses going nowhere just like now. I don't forge quote, I remember them. And you were very proud of having written it, also in your own forum, so stop to gass like if noone could sense your untrustwhorthyness. I trust the reader to can see the light, even when you attempt to hide it from them. I do respect your work but you will have at some point in your life and in the history of this, to aknowledge that you were wrong on many crucial points, and to take the consequences of this. You are mistaking in their degrees of knowledge in mathematics and in High Energy Physic and in theoretical Physic, and you are mistaking regarding the accuratesse and worth of their work, and mistaking in the future of this discovery and the impact it will very soon have on science, and mistaking about the intentions of those scientists, and mistaking about how they arrived where they are and how they obtain their doctor grad, and mistaking about their involvement in fordgery of documents with photoshop, and with their thesis, and with their IP adress, all of it issued from a wild assumption and corroborated by as wild speculations, but having no contact with the reality of the facts. I work as an archeologist, so I know how to collect facts and organise them in a very systematic order. You should do the same and avoid the trap of convincing yourself with your own pseudo veritas building, who is an unlucky mix of collected and speculated data.

IN VINO VERITAS --XAL 21:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If such references exist and contain really what you pretend they contain, I guess that the few readers of this section would find very intriguing you are unable to provide them.
About the Bogdanov's competence in physics, you didn't say much about what Alain Riazuelo wrote here, you pretended to be able to contest what he said, but you didn't. Let's take another example : in a letter written last year to "fan" who seemed, nevertheless, worry about some of the critics on the technical merit of their book "Avant le big bang", Igor tried to explain how they could have written something so clearly wrong as "the golden number is transcendantal", it the (quite long for such a stupid point) explanation he have shown not knowing what an algebraic curve is (reference : 1). Then he is as silent as a fish on this issue.
Some weeks ago you admitted to know nothing about physics but a bit of "Holger Beck Nielsen, Stephen Hawkins, and Max Planck", then you began to pretend to have addressed most scientific issues of the affair... too bad there is not a word from you on any place of the Internet on any of these scientific issues. If you're not competent to recognize pregraduate incompetence in physics and maths, that's not a problem, as long as you don't pretend to be. --YBM 21:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

To whom it might concern, and to answer the questions of ybm above, and of Alain Riazuelo under

Unless you stop your attempts at dissuading anybody to look into those references pro forma as you have always done.

Alain Riazuelo is completely incompetent in Cosmology and in Theoretical Physic and in High Energy Physic and he is well awared of it. At least we shall hope for the sick of the CNRS and of the french scientifical research.

Concerning the list of pseudo scientificals idioties he presented, they are not from him at all, which he also know and which you should know as well, and have been all adressed several time on scientifical internet web site, and official scientificals forums, both english and french, and I have several times and on several occasions posted their links here and in your forum and adressed it to different persons as a private gesture. Laurent adressed all the points listed by this Alain Riazuelo, "chercheur" at the CNRS but in an "unknown field"...if you see what I mean.

Igor Bogdanov never made a mistake about the golden number being transcendantal. You just misunderstood it all and couldn't get it out of your brain, also the guillements surrounding the word transcendantal stayed in your throwt, like an error of yours that you couldn't digest, so you create "the photoshop mistery", with Jean Pierre Voyer as ex editor and journalist of known french newspaper (!! really!!? then it explain how you got your hand on so many very negatives news articles abou the Bogdanovs!).

Well he send me an explaination who is to be seen on the recent archives of this wiki talk page, where he give to photoshop software a use in the making of newspaper who will be as good as pretending that you can make a phone call with an iron. That will answer your questions and demistyfied your whole trick around the guillement and the trandenscality of some golden numbers.

As regarding my level in science, knowing nothing more in physic that what the most prestigious mind in advanced physic and cosmology ever knew , put together ain't that bad don't you think. It is assurely much better than Rialuezo can ever achieve and so far away from you that I can't spot you down. Your main problem being that you have absolutely no idea of who I am, and my field of research isn't for poble like you. It is for me and my closest cowerker to know. You will have to live with that fact. As predictible from you, when you are dry for arguments, and it occurs often, you switch to private attacks, personal assaults. But you see, this kind prell on me like rain water on the window. And I am the one sitting inside. When the storm will be there, where would you be?

To conclude I want to assure you of the fact that I never pretend to be, I AM always ONE and completely, my knowledge overgo your set of standards, know only that I am here to stay. And here is my goodbye words to science: It is indeed not the Bogdanovs brothers who have a credibility problem in this affair, but the scientifical community who do have a credibility problem for judging upon its fellow members without a proper investigation, and for essuing a judgement and denying to read their thesis at one and the same time. Who is this thing called Science who deny using the scientifically prooved methods in the evaluation of its new members? Shame be on the scientifical community as a whole, for bringing dishonnor on its name and denying being wrong when knowing that she is. Shame and shaddow for the one who should have bring light and knowledge to human understanding. I only see ignorancy, lies, denials, and gossips in your corridors, the father of your ground can't recognise this place. Did you sayed science? Why then this offerings autel? And who is bleeding on it? and for what Shaitan or deity?

Anyone who reed their thesis, please rise. All the other say sorry, and do your home work.

No philosopher no historian no specialist in litteracy, will even dream of criticising the work of another wihtout having read it and fully understood it. But the scientific community do it all week and all day! Those men called scientifics are no more but old womens in a village in matter of colporting gossips. They do not read those thesis and theory, they "hear about someown who heard it from somebody" and tell you it is right or wrong, from a prejudice!!! This is overtro! superstission! wich craft! What are your prooves? Where are the fundement of the scientific method? Where are the minimum requiered building stones of any judgement after the philosophical analysis of each stone of argumentation?

The one having read their thesis and understood it, please rise. All the other say sorry and do your work like un homme de science, not like a gossiper!

--XAL 23:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not dissuading people to read what Laurent Sacco (who is only an amateur who wrote some pages on a popular science web site, what is quite honorable, what is less honorable is to lie in order to defend cranks) have posted on Usenet as an objection to my first paper of critics against Avant le Big Bang, I responded quite clearly : he did ignore most of the problems I pointed out, and had to rewrite what the Bogdanov actually wrote in their book in order to give it a bit of sense. I wasn't criticizing a inexistant rewriting of the book. As far as I know, Laurent have never adressed any of the points Alain is pointing out here (not even wrote a word on them), if you have any reference of it, why didn't you give it ?
I recall you : I asked you about references of very factual assertion of you. You failed to provide it.
About what you said on Alain Riazualo's critic posted here : this is plainly wrong that it has been taken from elsewhere on the Internet, he had obviously read the thesis and papers, and he is attacking them on scientific basis. The very scientific method you miserabily fail to use when revandicating it. It is you who is playing gossip, but did you do anything else from the first day you involved yourself in this story ? --YBM 23:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Your friend Alain Rialuetzo do not have the scientifical background nor knowledge to support his accusations, and is far less an expert in the matter than Laurent Sacco, post PHD in theoretical physic is, nor to understand those thesis, he should, like I did, refer to people who are better equiped than he is to do the job for him, as well as to have a second opinion on which he ca rely. I have. I never failled to bring refereces, but after 10 times and knowing your reaction will be for ever the same why bother. I am not going to overcharge thia already heavy talk page with a repetion of links. Beside, I have been adressing the worlds most competent heads in that matter, whcich you have failed to even attempt after 3 long years of gossiping. So I regard myself as a pioneer in the matter and the closest to truth and real science than anyone else on this affair. Interesting enough you didn't noticed it nor recall it. Did that fact escaped your mind? are you deleeting your conscience as you advance, or remaking your image before the sentence fall? I do prefer fast ground, the one I have provided and who will be available to all when all details will have been appropriately adressed and answered. No thanks to you nor to this Alain Rialuezo either, but thanks to me and my hability to proceed more scientifically than you all. I do not wish to adress your erraticals questioning any more, as dancing in argumentations circles isn't my style and never feel attractive, and even less so with you.

--XAL 00:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop evading when I asked you for references of what you affirm :
  • You said that I wrote something I never wrote, you failed to give any reference
  • You said that th-phys.edu.hk has not been bought with usurpation of a university name as I've shown, you failed to give any reference
  • You said Laurent Sacco did address Alain Riazuelo's critics, you failed to give any reference
  • and so on ...
I've followed all the links you provided on Wikipedia (both en and fr) and the former bogdanoff.forumactif forum, none of them never had a single word supposed to support what you pretend. Are you even able to read more than three words ?
You'd better check who is really Riazuelo before writing, it could make you look a bit less ridiculous than you are. --YBM 00:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Rialuezo can't ask questions about a subject that he does not fully understand, and as you are on the tu with the guy how come you don't yopurself know what the speciale of that man is, but only seems to pretend...((-: I have given the references for what you sayed, you pretended being blind from it. See a doctor.

I don't know what you are speaking about a web site being bought by a university, never heard of such ridiculous obsession, so even less could I have argued for or against...

Laurent Sacco adressed a serial of problems that you and your Baez had imagined to found in the Bogdanovs theories and who do not exist, as well as Rialuezo did, but you here on your own, making this analogy, proove indeed that the 2 lists are indeed identical, and the answer is served. CQFD. (((-:>

The references to Laurent answer has been given again and again, and I don't see any reason for your sudden interest in it, as you diapprouved, originaly, of it all together by saying or shouting?- !I don't care what you say! I will always repeet the same no matter what anybody say!" If you are so eager to get the link why don't you give it yourself, instead of deleeting it? Be of some use, you just aknowledge knowing of his argumentation and website, so unleash the monster and learn to compromise. You have it, serve it and then there will be no more denial from you as the link will have been provided by you. It is fair enough.

If all the links I provided in your forum had no effects on your allegations, and were going no where, then why did you unabled them and deleeted a big part of them? as I already pointed it before, and bis repetitas.

No I am not able to read more than 3 words. I am able to think on my own and understand, thats quiet different. But how should you know, socket puppet of JP Voyer? How could you found pride in it?

And how come, once again you do ignore the most important factor in this whole affair, the one I just mentioned, again above, asking you how it was possible that you didn't noticed it, and why your memory was so selectively redrawing essential facts?


--XAL 00:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop evading when I asked you for references of what you affirm :
  • You said that I wrote something I never wrote, you failed to give any reference
  • You said that th-phys.edu.hk (look User_Talk:XAL, search for th-phys.edu.hk) has not been bought with usurpation of a university name as I've shown, you failed to give any reference
  • You said Laurent Sacco did address Alain Riazuelo's critics (in this very page), you failed to give any reference
  • and so on ...
I've followed all the links you provided on Wikipedia (both en and fr) and the former bogdanoff.forumactif forum, none of them never had a single word supposed to support what you pretend. Are you even able to read more than three words ? --YBM 01:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Why did you put here a copy of your previous post? Is this a game you are playing or an error? I had removed it, but feel free to put it back, as maru did, thought I can't see the interest of it, unless you want to proove that indeed I am right about your insisting at coming back to point one no matter the answer.

--XAL 03:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


Because you gave no answer to my questions reguarding the absence of support of your claims. --YBM 11:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes I did and very well indeed, cheater! You njust can't take it and as always deny the existency of the answers that you can't logically deny, and which consequencies will be for you to have to redraw your accusations. You are not serious and your unscientifical behaviour make your interventions unpropper in this affair. As for having your JP Voyer inserting his rant inside my text, why don't you teach him what you know about wiki rules? --XAL 19:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

EE guy and XAL, please stop it

Please stop your increasingly intimate love squabble, the both of you. It's of limited interest to the rest of us who named who, or how many terms of endearment EE guy can come up with, and we have to archive this page often enough as it is. Please keep on topic, and if possible also stop rehashing the same arguments over and over, or I'm going to stop archiving from the top and stick your billing and cooing in a special chambre séparée. Bishonen | talk 09:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)