You point the finger so much, No one here is going to think of me any less.
People will make up their own minds. I've yet to see anyone come out of the woodwork in your defence though.
You sir, have accused me of lying, which you can substantiate with any proof - lying about subjects you cannot prove. Now you are accusing me of something you yet again cannot prove, hence, there is no evidence.
I can't
prove no, because I don't know who you are in real life. That doesn't mean I can't present evidence, as my responses to your posts have done. You have gotten something
basic wrong in pretty much every thread you've stated something to do with maths or physics. You got division by 2 mixed up with taking a square root for god sake! I'd be unimpressed if a 13 year old did that, never mind someone who claims to have studied quantum mechanics and vector calculus in the past and who 'investigates' spinors!
Every time I've gone through your nonsense you've had the opportunity to retort. You never do.
And by the way, lengthy threads are different from lengthy posts, you ignorant, thick, son of a bitch.
This is a post, is it not? It contains a fair amount of tex.
This is another. Lengthy
posts which spawned lots of replies.
Why you've come out with that response I don't know. Besides, is that the best you've got, calling me a 'ignorant thick son of a bitch' because
you misconstrue something I said about threads vs posts? What about all the physics and maths I've said? Can't you find something at fault there to respond to instead? Looks like you can't so you're scraping the barrel for something to insult me for.
I told Terry its a bit stupid for him to insult me when he asks me for help. You're calling me an 'ignorant thick son of a bitch' and yet I slap down all your attempts at physics and maths. What does that say about you?
oh shut up. It's obvious you know nothing of what has truly been passed between me or HIM
If we're doing the whole "OMG that sentence construction is wrong!!" thing then you mean to say "passed between me
and him", else you imply something passed between you alone and likewise with me. You need 2 people to pass something between.
Anyway, what has passed between you and me? We don't communicate via PM, so anything which has passed between you and me
is something Ol could have read. Unless perhaps you're accidentally referring to your previous accounts here, which did involve a lot of PMs back and fore.
But I do agree with one thing. It is never nice seeing someone resort to name-calling.
And yet you call someone an 'ignorant thick son of a bitch' for supposedly mixing up 'thread' and 'post'? If that's what you do for such a minor thing what would you call someone who claims to investigate quantum field theory but doesn't know the difference between division by 2 and taking a square root? I dread to think.... Fortunately you don't need to post said insult as it applies to you
Oh, god, were does one start? How about, the part you are making out that my statement about him being an over-rated fool for starters> He had provided no evidence to any of his wild unsubstantiated claims, yet you are quick to stand his corner. You know nothing of the situation, i've explained this to you, yet you persist again.
I've provided plenty of evidence you don't know the topics of which you speak. You claimed to be 'trying to remember basic stuff' yet you inexplicably mentioned irrelevant things, as if you were copying and pasting. You claim to have 'investigated' the Dirac equation yet you don't know about Pauli matrices, which also happen to be
essential to an understanding of entanglement, which your lengthy post supposedly deriving some result about entanglement and the Dirac equation
completely failed to mention in any way. Or how you claim to have not done spherical coordinates yet you've got work which can rederive Gauss's theorem.
Of course its possible you are just
extremely bad at explaining yourself, that you have a very bad memory for the finer details of things and you really have studied these things. Or you could just be a massive liar. I've given you every opportunity to step up and demonstrate you aren't. Doesn't need to be an algebra-fest, people like Guest or Ben or Cpt demonstrate they are knowledgeable without having to produce masses of mathematics but they also don't avoid it when its necessary. You run from every,
every, post where you're asked to demonstrate any actual understanding on topics
you bring up and claim you've done work on.
No... that just extremely dogmatic. And opinionated. That's all which he wins over me right here, right now.
How many times have I tried to engage you in detailed discussion? All of which you've walked away from. I have nothing to hide, I'm happy to talk about the specifics of the Dirac equation (to the limits of my knowledge, obviously) or entanglement. Hell, I'll be perfectly honest and admit that until about 3 months ago I had
very little experience with entanglement in quantum mechanics, I'd always worked on other things. Now I'm confident enough on it to be willing to talk about minor research level details with someone if they wish. If you were willing to have an honest discussion I'd be happy to have one.
Honest being the major thing.
You say its all opinionated and dogmatic but the only reason you haven't been completely nailed to the mast is because you walk away every time it becomes clear you've bitten off more than you can chew. Then you complain when people say "Looks to me like you don't know what you're talking about." Someone who says that to me on a topic I
do know about typically get laughed at and then their arse handed to them. I don't run from such people, I confront them as its no effort to kick my posts up a few gears and get into the details. If you knew the things you profess to you'd be able to do it too. You'd only need to do it once or twice, then people would know. Instead you spend more time whining about how no one takes you seriously then it would take the demonstrate you are serious.
I think in this thread Alpha suggested you were able to, on occassion, construct something of a measured argument. I see no evidence for that - he seems to be wrong on that one. So, you join my very short list of posters on Ignore. Goodbye.
A few threads he's started recently in the physics section are clearly attempts to talk about high level stuff but he's got the sense to ask a question, not post a pet theory, so at least then people will talk to him about the topic without slapping him silly.
I am not 'standing in his corner'. He is well able to look after himself.
I don't delude myself into thinking my general attitude to large numbers of posters doesn't do me any favours. I sometimes wonder just how close to the line I skim, perhaps the moderators would prefer it if I did tone it down a bit? Or maybe my habit of hitting the hack beehive with a stick is sufficiently entertaining to make up for my blunt style? There's a group of people here I am jovial with and a group I'm vitriolic with, with little in between. I find qualitative discussion of high level stuff enjoyable and I like helping people who don't grasp something I do when they honestly want to learn. I just don't think hacks should be pandered to and in the long run if I can get someone to realise they are wasting
their time on nonsense then great. I imagine I'd help more people if I was nicer to everyone but it'd be less fun if I went all smiles and hugs with every hack and nut who comes my way.
\edit
And no doubt some would like me to make shorter posts but I type quickly and like to explain myself.