User:Roadrunner/OldStuff

Seen the revert? That's what happens when you admit you're a layman; your opinion, even about laymen!, is completely dismissed. Physicists are the most arrogant sons of bitches imaginable. -- Ark

When talking about laypeople, you're projecting your own ignorance and beliefs onto them. That's what happens when you can't see a group (laypeople) as individual human beings with their own particular thoughts. Instead, they're just projections of you. So you get the situation where I'm not allowed to have any thoughts except the ones that you yourself believe, or once believed, or still secretly believe.

I'm supposed to believe there are hidden variables more fundamental than waves because you're still struggling against that belief. In fact, I'm supposed to have proposed a hidden-variables theory (what the fuck?) because you'd like to propose one. I'm supposed to believe in absolute position and momentum because you still believe in it. You hardly know anything about me and you still prejudge me so badly. How badly are you going to prejudge people you know nothing about?

Here's a hypothesis for you: the belief that laypeople care about hidden-variables is a massive delusional projection shared by students of physics. -- Ark (yes, a study of psych does help you understand the human mind)

We know that you&#8217;re arrogant. Why not put something autobiographical in the profile? What&#8217;s your area of expertise, for instance?

--172

-

The only thing I care to reveal about myself is that I am a subscriber to Time Warner Roadrunner.

I've never been a believer of argument by authority and wikipedia makes this unnecessary. You can figure out my areas of expertise by the text of my postings.

-

Are the above comments the ramblings of an evil, egotistical physics student or physicist?

172-most of us can't reveal info about ourselves for fear of the IAO. Vera Cruz


 * What nonsense. -- Zoe

Interesting commentary on this page. 172 makes interesting points about what are "laymen". I have my own area of expertise and often talk about laymen. 172 has at least awakened me to possible errors in doing so. Cool comments!

But that's not why i'm here.

Roadrunner,

I abandoned the discussion of naming conventions re japanese emperors. It became too heated for me, and i realized there were many people working on both sides of the debate who were much more knowledgeable than me.

So, I'm still out of that debate. But I saw your recent long post and want to say that it was very nice. Nicely written. Thoughtful. Respectful of others.

Good job! Arthur 20:00 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Hey, RR.. do us a favor and sign *each little talk entry you make, especially if you decide to keep cutting in.... A simple --RR is good enough, it doesnt have to be a sig... Be well. - &#35918 &#30505 sv

I am not trying to 'cram' anything down anyone. I must admit that I have rather enjoyed and appreciated the disection of royal prerogative, European Royal Prerogative and Divine right of kings. Given that many governments still claim these privileges, by even more modern names like the Burmese SLORC, the Castro government in Cuba, and many a dictator in Africa, it cannot be said that they are "western" ideas. When the "king" says "off with his head" it makes no difference that he appeals to a different legal system, or philosophical system, as his reason for believing that he has the right to do so for some self-perceived ideal. The reality is: the king says off with his head -- and there is no one there to stop him.

My use of the western terms stems only from my lack of knowledge about the terms used in other countries, coupled with the unweildliness of stating at each point of use "the European term xxx and the Chinese term xxx." We are here at wikipedia, after all, primarily Americans and Europeans. (Ironically, mostly because the "kings" of the East are still driven by their "prerogatives" of rule based on their idea of "divine right."

I just find that so-called differences in political cultures are not at all different, despite repeated claims to the contrary. I wholly respect the fact that China and the East are different in many areas of human cognition and beliefs than the West. However, when it comes to political theory -- of which I have spent the better part of the last thirty years looking at -- I simply am unable to find the difference -- other than in the words used -- in the concepts and effects of the theories in place. I am not dodgy, nuts or pushy about it. Hence, I separated the articles totally. I can understand those who want to continue the claim that both halves of the world are wholly different, but in years of living in New York City, working with and among Chinese immigrants and European immigrants as well as with Americans, there is an incredible uniformity of belief, however ill expressed, by one and all. And the view of royalty and its claimed privileges is the same every where.

Therefore, there is no difference in the actuality of these concepts on either side of the world, save for semantics, and perhaps some minor degree of codification.

Hlavac

Your proposal that the concept of correlation function is used primarily, and indeed only, in astronomy, is the most startling thing I have recently seen on Wikipedia. Michael Hardy 18:51, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Roadrunner - have you seen Requests for adminship? Also, you have a "talk page" at User talk:Roadrunner. (This is different from your "user page" here at User:Roadrunner.)

A "You have new messages" link is supposed to appear at the top of the screen when someone edits your talk page. Also, the "Talk" in Roadrunner (Talk) should lead to your talk page.

You can sign your posts with or ~, which is automatically converted to the link Roadrunner. &#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; Cyp    01:05, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Roadrunner; I left a petition to you in Talk: Theory of Relativity. David--200.42.95.188 17:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi from a flying Brookie
Brookie flying by from England reviewing user pages and saying hello - no cool photo of you though - Brookie 22:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)