People are Stupid

Crazy and stupid, no less.

Guess this makes St. Patrick's Day really Satan's Holiday (Well, of course it does since it usually involves drinking green beer).

People are Stupid

Crazy and stupid, no less.

Guess this makes St. Patrick's Day really Satan's Holiday (Well, of course it does since it usually involves drinking green beer).

People are Stupid

Crazy and stupid, no less.

Guess this makes St. Patrick's Day really Satan's Holiday (Well, of course it does since it usually involves drinking green beer).

All the world is a fandom...

And we're just the wankers in it.

Seriously, the older I get, the more I believe that's true. We see the wanking in online fandoms because it's just so blatantly out there to see.  But once you become familiar with the slings and arrows of fandom flamewars, the more you see that real life resembles them (I mean, honestly 70% of political rhetoric sounds far too much like fandom flamewars to my ears.  [OMG!  My view is so canon! Yrs sucks!...  My fandom is bigger than your fandom! ...No!  My fandom is RIGHT! ...I hereby invoke Godwin's Law (or someone should)]

Anywhoodle,  when reading Discover.com I came upon this article. The physicists, they are a wanking.

Quote:

The physics blogosphere has been crackling with controversy over whether an anti-string theorist is being censored by the stringy majority. Recently an all-out brawl has ensued, spread out over several blogs.

 

One of the central depositories of scientific thought in the physics world is a Web site called the arXiv, a place where research articles are run -- often prior to journal publication - and where physicists can post comments about that research. 

 

One of the most vocal opponents to the current physics movement known as string theory is Columbia University's Peter Woit (Discover interview here). Woit claims his trackbacks - links to discussions of research on his blog -- are being deleted from the arXiv simply because his views differ from the string theory mainstream, members of which are running the arXiv. A heated debate about this conspiracy theory has recently kept bloggers up through the night. 

 

The following is a compilation of highlights of the melee, complete with name-calling, personal attacks, and a dash of reasoned discussion.

http://www.discover.com/web-exclusives/bad-boys-in-blogosphere/


Samples:

Peter Woit, posted March 3   4:04 pm

I strongly object to the characterization of me as "not an active researcher". If that's the case, I don't quite know what it is I'm doing during the many hours a week I spend thinking about how to use geometric methods in representation theory to formulate 2d chiral gauge theories in a new way and writing out notes about this in a notebook. I attend conferences, give talks on my research and have posted a long manuscript on the subject at the arXiv...

Hektor Bim, posted Mar 4    2:50 pm

At least part of the reason Peter Woit doesn't get trackbacks from arxiv.org is because Jacques Distler thinks he is a crank...This feeling is probably widely shared among string theorists.

Luboš Motl [Harvard University], posted March 4   4:05 pm

Expecting that someone has a right for his blog articles to be published or linked in scientific journals and their electronic counterparts is a crazy idea, especially if these blog articles are primarily addressed to completely moronic crackpots... 

Peter Woit, posted March 4th, 2006    4:23 pm

As usual, Luboš makes my case far better than I ever could...I can't imagine what other evidence anyone needs to see that there is a problem with the arXiv moderation system, and that string theory fanaticism is at the root of the problem.

Jacques Distler, posted March 7   9:39 am

...but, with your continual attacks on my competence, Jacques, you're not far behind. 

In the 3 1/2 years that I have run this blog, I have mentioned your name a grand total of 4 times. (Which, apparently, is not frequently enough for you.)  So much for my "continual attacks."

You, by contrast, bring up my name with alarming regularity, (96 times, as of this moment) invariably coupled with some insult or accusation.

 I don't know why you've taken such an intense dislike to me. While I can't do anything about what you say about me elsewhere, I'm not in the mood to tolerate your wild accusations over here

Luboš Motl, posted March 7, 

Peter...likes to build on this kind of "discussion" because what these crackpots are saying is very convenient for his agenda. He likes to be viewed as the hero who fights against the evil science and the evil scientists. At the same time, of course, he is trying to pretend that he is not one of them.

Michael, posted March 8, 8:53 pm

Peter, comparing your own academic accomplishments with Jacques' and reaching a conclusion in favor of yourself raises your crackpot index to an all-time high.

All the world is a fandom...

And we're just the wankers in it.

Seriously, the older I get, the more I believe that's true. We see the wanking in online fandoms because it's just so blatantly out there to see.  But once you become familiar with the slings and arrows of fandom flamewars, the more you see that real life resembles them (I mean, honestly 70% of political rhetoric sounds far too much like fandom flamewars to my ears.  [OMG!  My view is so canon! Yrs sucks!...  My fandom is bigger than your fandom! ...No!  My fandom is RIGHT! ...I hereby invoke Godwin's Law (or someone should)]

Anywhoodle,  when reading Discover.com I came upon this article. The physicists, they are a wanking.

Quote:

The physics blogosphere has been crackling with controversy over whether an anti-string theorist is being censored by the stringy majority. Recently an all-out brawl has ensued, spread out over several blogs.

 

One of the central depositories of scientific thought in the physics world is a Web site called the arXiv, a place where research articles are run -- often prior to journal publication - and where physicists can post comments about that research. 

 

One of the most vocal opponents to the current physics movement known as string theory is Columbia University's Peter Woit (Discover interview here). Woit claims his trackbacks - links to discussions of research on his blog -- are being deleted from the arXiv simply because his views differ from the string theory mainstream, members of which are running the arXiv. A heated debate about this conspiracy theory has recently kept bloggers up through the night. 

 

The following is a compilation of highlights of the melee, complete with name-calling, personal attacks, and a dash of reasoned discussion.

http://www.discover.com/web-exclusives/bad-boys-in-blogosphere/


Samples:

Peter Woit, posted March 3   4:04 pm

I strongly object to the characterization of me as "not an active researcher". If that's the case, I don't quite know what it is I'm doing during the many hours a week I spend thinking about how to use geometric methods in representation theory to formulate 2d chiral gauge theories in a new way and writing out notes about this in a notebook. I attend conferences, give talks on my research and have posted a long manuscript on the subject at the arXiv...

Hektor Bim, posted Mar 4    2:50 pm

At least part of the reason Peter Woit doesn't get trackbacks from arxiv.org is because Jacques Distler thinks he is a crank...This feeling is probably widely shared among string theorists.

Luboš Motl [Harvard University], posted March 4   4:05 pm

Expecting that someone has a right for his blog articles to be published or linked in scientific journals and their electronic counterparts is a crazy idea, especially if these blog articles are primarily addressed to completely moronic crackpots... 

Peter Woit, posted March 4th, 2006    4:23 pm

As usual, Luboš makes my case far better than I ever could...I can't imagine what other evidence anyone needs to see that there is a problem with the arXiv moderation system, and that string theory fanaticism is at the root of the problem.

Jacques Distler, posted March 7   9:39 am

...but, with your continual attacks on my competence, Jacques, you're not far behind. 

In the 3 1/2 years that I have run this blog, I have mentioned your name a grand total of 4 times. (Which, apparently, is not frequently enough for you.)  So much for my "continual attacks."

You, by contrast, bring up my name with alarming regularity, (96 times, as of this moment) invariably coupled with some insult or accusation.

 I don't know why you've taken such an intense dislike to me. While I can't do anything about what you say about me elsewhere, I'm not in the mood to tolerate your wild accusations over here

Luboš Motl, posted March 7, 

Peter...likes to build on this kind of "discussion" because what these crackpots are saying is very convenient for his agenda. He likes to be viewed as the hero who fights against the evil science and the evil scientists. At the same time, of course, he is trying to pretend that he is not one of them.

Michael, posted March 8, 8:53 pm

Peter, comparing your own academic accomplishments with Jacques' and reaching a conclusion in favor of yourself raises your crackpot index to an all-time high.

All the world is a fandom...

And we're just the wankers in it.

Seriously, the older I get, the more I believe that's true. We see the wanking in online fandoms because it's just so blatantly out there to see.  But once you become familiar with the slings and arrows of fandom flamewars, the more you see that real life resembles them (I mean, honestly 70% of political rhetoric sounds far too much like fandom flamewars to my ears.  [OMG!  My view is so canon! Yrs sucks!...  My fandom is bigger than your fandom! ...No!  My fandom is RIGHT! ...I hereby invoke Godwin's Law (or someone should)]

Anywhoodle,  when reading Discover.com I came upon this article. The physicists, they are a wanking.

Quote:

The physics blogosphere has been crackling with controversy over whether an anti-string theorist is being censored by the stringy majority. Recently an all-out brawl has ensued, spread out over several blogs.

 

One of the central depositories of scientific thought in the physics world is a Web site called the arXiv, a place where research articles are run -- often prior to journal publication - and where physicists can post comments about that research. 

 

One of the most vocal opponents to the current physics movement known as string theory is Columbia University's Peter Woit (Discover interview here). Woit claims his trackbacks - links to discussions of research on his blog -- are being deleted from the arXiv simply because his views differ from the string theory mainstream, members of which are running the arXiv. A heated debate about this conspiracy theory has recently kept bloggers up through the night. 

 

The following is a compilation of highlights of the melee, complete with name-calling, personal attacks, and a dash of reasoned discussion.

http://www.discover.com/web-exclusives/bad-boys-in-blogosphere/


Samples:

Peter Woit, posted March 3   4:04 pm

I strongly object to the characterization of me as "not an active researcher". If that's the case, I don't quite know what it is I'm doing during the many hours a week I spend thinking about how to use geometric methods in representation theory to formulate 2d chiral gauge theories in a new way and writing out notes about this in a notebook. I attend conferences, give talks on my research and have posted a long manuscript on the subject at the arXiv...

Hektor Bim, posted Mar 4    2:50 pm

At least part of the reason Peter Woit doesn't get trackbacks from arxiv.org is because Jacques Distler thinks he is a crank...This feeling is probably widely shared among string theorists.

Luboš Motl [Harvard University], posted March 4   4:05 pm

Expecting that someone has a right for his blog articles to be published or linked in scientific journals and their electronic counterparts is a crazy idea, especially if these blog articles are primarily addressed to completely moronic crackpots... 

Peter Woit, posted March 4th, 2006    4:23 pm

As usual, Luboš makes my case far better than I ever could...I can't imagine what other evidence anyone needs to see that there is a problem with the arXiv moderation system, and that string theory fanaticism is at the root of the problem.

Jacques Distler, posted March 7   9:39 am

...but, with your continual attacks on my competence, Jacques, you're not far behind. 

In the 3 1/2 years that I have run this blog, I have mentioned your name a grand total of 4 times. (Which, apparently, is not frequently enough for you.)  So much for my "continual attacks."

You, by contrast, bring up my name with alarming regularity, (96 times, as of this moment) invariably coupled with some insult or accusation.

 I don't know why you've taken such an intense dislike to me. While I can't do anything about what you say about me elsewhere, I'm not in the mood to tolerate your wild accusations over here

Luboš Motl, posted March 7, 

Peter...likes to build on this kind of "discussion" because what these crackpots are saying is very convenient for his agenda. He likes to be viewed as the hero who fights against the evil science and the evil scientists. At the same time, of course, he is trying to pretend that he is not one of them.

Michael, posted March 8, 8:53 pm

Peter, comparing your own academic accomplishments with Jacques' and reaching a conclusion in favor of yourself raises your crackpot index to an all-time high.