Abusing the internet trolls

Jan 03, 2014

Internet trolling is a matter of "moral panic", according to an assessment of this activity by Jonathan Bishop of the Centre for Research into Online Communities and E-Learning Systems in Brussels. Writing in the International Journal of Web Based Communities he suggests that the misrepresentation by the media of all those who participate in this often negative but not always abusive behaviour can have a detrimental effect on attitudes to younger internet users in general.

The phrase "Internet trolling" is presented by the media as being commenting in a needlessly sarcastic, facetious, abusive or offensive manner on social networking and other online forums. The term has become the phrase of choice for those who seek to censure the internet. The mass media, politicians and social pundits have found it increasingly useful shorthand for labeling anyone who publishes remarks with which they do not necessarily agree online.

As Bishop explains, the term "troll" has been evolutionary. "The use of the word trolling to refer to provocation was probably first used in the military to refer to the reeling in of enemy fighter jets into a dog-fight," he said. "As my paper shows it was used on the Internet in the 1990s to refer to enticing people into flame wars by saying things that would provoke others into posting abusive messages, called 'flames.'"

As with all areas of human activity there is a darker side to trolling and the media and pundits alike today use the term to refer to those people making abusive and threatening remarks to famous or infamous persons online. The difference between the irritating behaviour of a common internet troll and the latter is perhaps as stark as passersby tolerating the utterances of a street hawker and the person who stalks another and shouts through their letterbox or worse.

This latter perception has, Bishop suggests, been helpful for building the careers of politicians in search of causes to fight, as well as mass media organisations looking for a means to create a that provides both entertainment and interest to their audiences. "The can be seen to have accommodated the word troll between 2010 and 2011. In March 2011 in particular, British tabloid newspapers like the Daily Mail and the Express, who tailor their content to a more 'right-wing' audience, became a useful term for describing people who abuse others online," explains Bishop. "One thing that is certain of all media of all eras is that they rely on popular stereotypes to convey meanings that appeal to their audiences," he adds. Likewise, politicians and others will exploit the popularized terms used by the media to their own ends to demonise specific activities and to score political points against their opponents.

Bishop points out that the journalese shorthand misconstrued and exploited initially by the tabloid media and then adopted by the wider community of broadsheets, TV pundits and ultimately politicians simultaneously demonizes youth as celebrity-abusing trolls and then the victims of a broken society depending on the specific political agenda of the outlet. One might suggest that it is as if trolling is simply another ambiguous term with shades of meaning depending on context that is itself manipulated for political ends.

Explore further: Achieving optimal online marketing through cutting edge analysis

More information: Int. J. Web Based Communities, 2014, 10, 7-24

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

China pays two million to monitor Internet

Oct 06, 2013

China is employing two million people to keep tabs on people's Internet use, according to state media, in a rare glimpse into the secret world of Beijing's vast online surveillance operation.

Twitter threats highlight blight of online trolls

Aug 01, 2013

If Twitter is the chirping chatterbox of the Internet, trolls are its dark underground denizens. The collision of the two is driving a debate in Britain about the scale of online hatred and the limits of ...

Recommended for you

Putting children first, when media sets its own rules

4 hours ago

In an age when a significant number of parents won't let their child walk down the street to post a letter because of "stranger danger", it's ironic that many pay little attention while media organisations ...

Self-made billionaires more likely to give than inheritors

6 hours ago

A study by economists at the University of Southampton suggests that billionaires who have built their own fortunes are more likely to pledge to donate a large portion of their wealth to charities, than those who are heirs ...

User comments : 36

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
5 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2014
LOL A paywalled journal trolling for customers? Welcome to the Open Access controversy.
Protoplasmix
2.3 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2014
As offensive as some trolls can be, if the discourse has not regressed into an exercise in foolish futility, then there are usually invaluable lessons to be had from what might be viewed as naturally applied Socratic cognitive therapy, which would otherwise be harder to come by in any other type of group setting. It can be quite humorous and entertaining.

But if the troll is just being a bully then a line has been crossed that may require additional forms of moderation or intervention. If the troll has a sockpuppet, it's possible to observe a clumsy tango that takes only one to do. If it's a troll is working for big oil and the like, probably best not to feed that troll. If it's a Republican troll, ask it how the party expects to win elections with almost all the money in the world, but far fewer voters—it will not likely reply with the honest answer, 'gerrymandering & getting the misinformation out with our foully-owned sympathetic media outlets.'

-edit- I misspelled 'fully-owned.'
geokstr
3 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2014
Funny, but every post on a conservative site has one, and almost only one, leftling troll on it, whose only purpose seems to be to disrupt the comment thread and repeat leftling talking points, over and over ad nauseum. It's almost as if they are being assigned which posts to infect/infest, so they don't duplicate their efforts. Not only that, but almost all their upvotes are from "guests".

No doubt, perhaps most likely probably certainly just coincidence (possibly).
Protoplasmix
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2014
Funny, but every post on a conservative site has one, and almost only one, leftling troll on it,

I don't think a desire for the truth is necessarily 'leftling' or 'rightling'. Since I desire the truth I guess that would make me conservative? Naw, the labels have all been hijacked by the aforementioned trolls with their faux news …
DavidW
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2014
Funny, but every post on a conservative site has one, and almost only one, leftling troll on it,

I don't think a desire for the truth is necessarily 'leftling' or 'rightling'. Since I desire the truth...


Well good for you. Here you go: Life is Most Important in Life is The Most important Truth in Life.

That's not only the Truth, but that's the MOST important one in Life. Nothing you read or hear will ever be more valuable in Life.

Now that you have the Truth, do you accept this as the Truth and do you choose this Truth of your own free will in witness before your peers?

Yes... then great.
No, then you just claimed responsibility for for every single case of needless suffering and death on this planet because you denied the Truth; the only thing that can always prevent needless suffering and death.

Zephir_fan
Jan 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
baudrunner
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2014
Skippy is throwing himself out as troll bait.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2014
Many posters may not realize or do not care just how offensive their thoughtless, sloppy, ignorant, or unresearched posts are, and so require a slap in the face sometimes to reset the karma of the universe.

This is also the result of anonymity. People see this venue as a place where they can pretend to be people and know things which might actually get them slapped for real in polite company.

This goes for idiot savant PhDs who prefer expounding where they cannot actually hear the snickers and the guffaws.
Well good for you. Here you go: Life is Most Important in Life is The Most important Truth in Life
-And then there some who are immune to slapping , or who actually enjoy and request it. These sickos are invariably religious. Jesus made martyrdom respectable (it's not).
DavidW
1 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2014
Well good for you. Here you go: Life is Most Important in Life is The Most important Truth in Life.

That's not only the Truth, but that's the MOST important one in Life. Nothing you read or hear will ever be more valuable in Life.

Now that you have the Truth, do you accept this as the Truth and do you choose this Truth of your own free will in witness before your peers?

Yes... then great.
No, then you just claimed responsibility for for every single case of needless suffering and death on this planet because you denied the Truth; the only thing that can always prevent needless suffering and death.


Well not every single case Skippy, That wouldn't leave you with anyone for you give some needless suffering to. But other than that, you still don't have a point.


Life is Most Important is Life is a point of Truth. To argue that is to commit hypocrisy (lie). If you can't use that point in defining another point then that other point is not real. It's that simple.
Zephir_fan
Jan 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
skippy_skippys
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2014
I can't tell if that gem of a sentence is a statement of fact, a question or the ramblings of a Skippy who's grammar is worse than my own.


Well Skippy it seems to be so very simple that you are the only one who understands what the hell you mean.


Maybe the zephir_fan skippy ira is borderline retarded so she's no understand anything of it.
Zephir_fan
Jan 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rebel Siren
not rated yet Feb 28, 2014
The truth is that hired internet trolls have become a serious and rampant problem in social media. http://rebelsiren...bunkers/
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2014
For example in this thread my posts were all deleted, and the nonsensical comments consisting of numbers remained. Sometimes the voice of trolls becomes usefull for censors: not only it does dilute the substantial opposition - but it even provides the evasion for its censoring

@zephir
were they the nestle/osteta posts?
more likely they were deleted because they were banned or shut down by the moderators/site managers
were you notified why they were banned?

looks to me like this: when you get banned / shut down by the moderators, your profile and comments get deleted. only the quoted parts left in other posters remains from what I can tell.

No great conspiracy.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2014
Nope, my posts are deleted silently together with account as a whole.

@zeph
you never received ANY messages saying a post was pulled/deleted and that you may be banned for continuing?
I've had a couple posts pulled, and I was messaged here as well as in e-mail
if I would be normal scientist trying to publish in mainstream journals. After all, some topics (cold fusion, etc) are considered trolling even with mainstream journals (Nature, Science). They don't allow to publish it for anyone.

not sure how this applies to being published in journals...
as for cold fusion... there have been NO reputable advances made

Speculations as to how it will change the world if we dump money into it are useless because it has been recognized as a dead area

shoving money up a dead horse's nose isnt going to make it run any faster
it just wastes perfectly good money that could be used elsewhere
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2014
I've had a couple posts pulled, and I was messaged here as well as in e-mail

I don't recall any of my posts pulled - an I say some pretty inane crap, sometimes...

.. as for cold fusion... there have been NO reputable advances made{/q}
There HAS been. But it has always been on a locality/time paradigm.

Speculations as to how it will change the world if we dump money into it are useless because it has been recognized as a dead area

Why was NASA granted a patent for something like it, under a different name?

shoving money up a dead horse's nose isnt going to make it run any faster
it just wastes perfectly good money that could be used elsewhere

What happens when you try the other end...?
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2014
Today at MIT are produced samples, which generate the COP over 10 quite reproducibly and regularly

@Z
you claim a MIT study and link e-catworld? Really?
This is the exact same thing as EU making astrophysical claims and then linking IEEE...
if there is reputable science backing up the claim, lint it to a reputable site.
You call that pluralistic ignorance, but I call it science

this is the essence of my argument with IEEE and EU... if there is legitimate science then there will be a legitimate study

you made a claim about MIT, provide the MIT links
They were usually labelled as a pseudoscience (of course, such a labelling was usually fabricated)

if you were puking AW or DAW then it WAS pseudoscience
you might not like hearing it, but until you produce empirical data with maths, etc etc, then it is pure conjecture without any basis in science, no matter how many waves, water strider's or foggy landscapes you claim
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2014
Why was NASA granted a patent for something like it, under a different name?

@WGyre
show me a working prototype
also... there are patents for electric hair washers and gas powered rockers, too
something to think about
What happens when you try the other end...?

erm... can I plead the 5th?
But at the case of cold fusion wide group of producers of existing energy solutions would face the lost of their profit, not just global rise of the living standard

@Zephir
personal conjecture
You are assuming (still) that it is a viable workable product. So far, all we have are crackpot claims
case in point: BlackLight power (on your revered e-cat site too)
essentially, their hydrino paper that was linked here before explains a perpetual motion machine

when you get one of those... either there is a huge mistake somewhere (maths/physics) or there is a con man trying to sell you the Brooklyn bridge
I tend to think the latter
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2014
This is just another example of bias (appeal to authority fallacy)

@zephir
nope
when you want to prove a point, you should use empirical data
when you use a known pseudoscience site, or a site that has been known to publish crackpot ideology and fallacies that are impossible (perpetual motion machines) then your site has been proven to be invalid for scientific support
this is NOT appeal to authority, but appeal to rational empirical data

IF there is valid science to support your claims, you will find it in studies elsewhere

IF it is pseudoscience crap, then you will only find support on pseudoscience sites: see EU

this is LOGIC
just cites the more relevant sources. It doesn't make it less authoritative in the subject.

making this claim about a site that publishes known pseudoscience is like saying: if it is on the internet, it MUST be true

cant you see the problem with that?

I guess not, as long as they support YOUR pet theory...
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 28, 2014
So now you're just demonstrating, how the pluralistic ignorance and groupthink actually work. The appeal to authority leads into spiral of silence. Nobody allows the publishing of the findings in authoritative sources, because it's commonly believed, that the this finding is not authoritatative, because it lacks the authoritative sources

@Z
again... this is just like saying that: if it is on the internet, it MUST be true
BULL!
You know as well as I do that reputable journals/sites require maths/proof and check as best they can to validate the findings (peer review process by people in the field)
yes, there are sometimes issues...
BUT
better than having DAW/AW/EU philosophies flooding legitimate scientific sites as there are NO PROOFS validating them

all you are doing now is claiming conspiracy against your philosophy
I don't see any reason, why they shouldn't get published

personal conjecture
no place in science
bring proof or it is nothing but a temper tantrum
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 28, 2014
The research of Higgs boson doesn't require to lead into "viable workable product".

@zephir
proof of stupidity (not ignorance)
personal conjecture as well
proof of Higgs directly validates fundamental science
this was ALREADY shown to you more than once
So why the research of cold fusion should require it?

it requires the same empirical data that everything else requires
You're a fluent generator of logical fallacies, groupthing and double standards - just admit it

personal conjecture
proof?
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
At some forums their moderators http://i.imgur.com/qD5231T.gif, that even after year the clueless persons are banned from there just for suspicion, they're my sockpuppets.


Yes zephyr, you have managed to leave quite a legacy. The shame of it is, most sites would rather take the step of banning those they suspect of being you than take the chance of leaving you to clog up otherwise intelligent, interesting threads with the same mystical, pseudo-scientific and incorrect ramblings you think pass for a "theory".

Even that would be ok, except that you consistently and constantly respout the same tired GARBAGE that you have not only been shown does not work, but been provided with the means to determine why it does not work on your own! You ignore any offers of help, then go to the very next article and post exactly the same GARBAGE! THAT'S why you get banned so often Zephyr.

You, sir, are the troll.
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
My experience with proponents of mainstream physics is like the standing bellow a waterfall, whereas I'm saying: "This, my dear, is the waterfall".


Well have ya tried saying it without bellowing it?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
IMO Higgs boson is different beast than the "fundamental science" assumes

@Z
good. OPINION is not the same as proof
there is PROOF that the Higgs is relevant to the standard model, and it is a fundamental part of fundamental physics
just the indicia of its complex nature are ignored

conjecture based upon incorrect assumption of stopped investigation
I still don't see any practical usage of it with compare to research of LENR

because you dont understand enough about physics/maths/proof
FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE underpins EVERYTHING
this would INCLUDE your LENR clamis/studies, etc
"interesting phenomena or immense practical importance", then the later research should get more love.

again, you ASSUME that Higgs research is just "interesting" whereas it is FUNDAMENTAL
fundamental= serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying
http://dictionary...damental
http://www.merria...damental

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
At some forums their moderators http://i.imgur.com/qD5231T.gif, that even after year the clueless persons are banned from there just for suspicion, they're my sockpuppets.

@Z
imagine that... I wonder why? (intentional hyperbole and satire)
Why do you think, the Couder experiments model the quantum mechanics well?

why do you think your conjecture is a factual analysis of the model? Just because you ASSUME something does not mean it is correct: when you see a boat hit a tree in the water, then the boat sinks, you can make several assumptions about why... but this does not mean that whenever a boat hits wood of any kind that it will always sink! (see boat ramps for jumping boats out of water) there are many factors involved, AND there are underlying laws of physics that explain it all perfectly, if ONLY you learn them.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
I of course do realize quite well, that the waterfall can be described with parabola and I have no problem with it. It's even a quite an achievement to recognize the parabola in the waterfall and I do respect it. But is it really everything, what we can say about it?

@Z
interesting but confusing example.
What a scientist needs is empirical data with the requisite error bars to make any factual statements. Whereas what you require and produce are conjectures without valid empirical data. This is where you differ in your application of your knowledge... and also that you both tie everything into your theory and you use pseudoscience sites as references to back up your claims

think about this: IF there is a valid assumption on your part
AND you believe that there is legitimate cause for it to be applied to the current topic
THEN research valid current models of science that explain the physics/etc of whatever you are claiming

dont be like EU crackpots and use refuted studies
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
I'm saying: "This, my dear, is the waterfall". And the proponents of mainstream science are screaming as a single man: "Nope, you idiot - etc
You continually miss the point Zephyr. Using your (confusing) analogy, you are standing at the water saying the water is falling up and that fits with my model that water always flows up a waterfall. People say to you, no its falling down, and here is why; this is the math that proves it; here's how you can do the math yourself so you can see why we are saying this. You reply, not, its falling up because look at my theory, it confirms the water falls up. Another round of "no, its not and here is why follows. You reply, no, look at this transverse wave in the muddy pond flowing up the hill, just like my theory says. Another round of no, it does not work that way, you have been shown why.

Jump to the new waterfall downstream. The first thing you write is "the water is falling up and that fits with my model". And so on. cont..
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
cont... Now it is one thing to claim that your model works, because you have considered the comments of others who have taken the time to show you why your ideas were wrong, and you can provide the proof that what you are claiming is right. It is quite another, however, to simply move to the next article in line and then restate your ideas as if they were never discussed in the first place.

YOU need to take the time and learn the math Zephyr. Once you have the maths understood, THEN you can argue that something in the "mainstream" of science is wrong, assuming you can identify such, and then, WITH PROOFS you can make your case! Until then it is IDLE SPECULATION and NOTHING MORE.

Jeepers Captain, I'm starting to take YOUR method lol :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
You continually miss the point Z...

@Maggnus
you know, with Z it might not be so much a delusional fueled psychosis so much as a disconnect with interpretation (maybe language fueled as well as something else?)
perhaps there is also an inability to functionally comprehend the maths (fear of math?) as well as the physics (involving a great deal of maths)
this would explain his intuitive approach
perhaps there is a method out there that uses the intuitive approach to show logic and teach physics etc while also conforming to the disability in question (with Z) … almost like the teaching models used on Dyslexics?
Maybe there is a legitimate underlying pathology to Z's approach on science? It really does mimic dyslexia in many ways... inability to comprehend basic logic, reading comprehension, transposition of thought/logic...
there is also the language translation barrier
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
You know Stumpy, you might have something there. It certainly does not appear to be a failing of intellect; at times, Zephyr makes some intriguing and insightful comments. So maybe; Zephyr, has Stumpy got it more or less right? I'd be interested in your view.
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
You know Stumpy, you might have something there. It certainly does not appear to be a failing of intellect; at times, Zephyr makes some intriguing and insightful comments. So maybe; Zephyr, has Stumpy got it more or less right? I'd be interested in your view.

@Maggnus
actually speaking from personal experience as well... as I am dyslexic I have serious problems with maths and sometimes with interpretation (especially with regard to fatigue: the more tired I am, the harder it is)
I just noticed that he exhibits all the same traits that I did before I was diagnosed.

I am also willing to bet that there will be a great deal of denial if he actually does reply and answer the question you posed
he will blame you, or me, or anyone else (including the ubiquitous "they")
easier to believe conspiracy etc then personal deformity/inability
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
Zephyr knows more physics than absolutely anyone else here and it is interesting and educational to see how he manages to distort and pervert it for his own selfish enjoyment.

Captain stumpy is repeating in his own stumpy way what many more capable and recalcitrant people have tried to do 'before many years then', in zephyr vernacular. And they have failed. Some like frajo have stormed off in a huff. Some like ethelred have simply lost interest. Others like Skeptic_Heretic have probably died or gone insane.

No matter.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
Zephyr knows more physics than absolutely anyone else here and it is interesting and educational to see how he manages to distort and pervert it for his own selfish enjoyment.

Captain stumpy is repeating in his own stumpy way what many more capable and recalcitrant people have tried to do 'before many years then', in zephyr vernacular. And they have failed. Some like frajo have stormed off in a huff. Some like ethelred have simply lost interest. Others like Skeptic_Heretic have probably died or gone insane.

No matter.
Of course you would think that! You don't understand physics!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
Zephyr knows more physics than absolutely anyone else here

@Otto
I do not doubt that Zephir has an intuitive grasp on the basics of physics.

What I suggest is: he does NOT have a grasp on the fundamental maths involved, or the less intuitive aspects of certain physics

There are aspects of his language that suggest that, besides the translations problems, there may be a fundamental problem with comprehension on some of those issues (understanding WHY certain physics refute aether etc)
which is why he tends to stick with certain processes that can be explained intuitively, or with imagery (like DAW etc) rather than provide evidence/data to support conclusions
what many more capable and recalcitrant people have tried to do

I'm not worried about it
actually, I find it interesting
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
I do not doubt that Zephir has an intuitive grasp on the basics of physics.
And WTF is an 'intuitive grasp of physics'? Is that like a cat is born knowing that mice are food? He has obviously formally studied or has taught himself. And his knowledge is far beyond basics, obviously. And obviously youre wasting your time. For instance
For example, the Standard Model manages twenty six constants or so, but the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model adds at least one hundreds of another parameters and terms, which aren't calculable by now.
Theres obviously nothing basic about this. Your kicking of his shins serves no purpose .
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
And WTF is an 'intuitive grasp of physics'?

@otto
I mean exactly what I said
intuitive: as in- agreeing with what seems naturally right
And his knowledge is far beyond basics, obviously. And obviously youre wasting your time

then why will he not supply mathematical proofs defining the DAW or AW posts?

I dont doubt that he is intelligent, as it is obvious
there have been posts that directly refute aether and
either: he didnt understand them OR
he is willfully ignoring the obvious
Either way puts us right at the same spot
Your kicking of his shins serves no purpose

and kissing his butt serves no purpose either

I agree with his accurate posts
but not with aether, SO WHAT?
who cares what I agree or dont agree with, Otto?
You obviously dont, so why bother?
What are you after?

trying to put me in my place? consider me PUT
trying to show everyone who is boss? you are the boss
anything else I need to prorogue to your obviously superior googling skills & wisdom? tell me
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
For example, the Standard Model manages twenty six constants or so, but the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model adds at least one hundreds of another parameters and terms, which aren't calculable by now.

Theres obviously nothing basic about this. Your kicking of his shins serves no purpose .


Bahahahahaa there's nothing basic about it is right! It's not right! It's not even wrong!

That YOU think it is something mystical and awe inspiring doesn't surprise me one bit. No wonder you advocate so strongly for LENR, you don't understand why it likely can't work!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2014
IF there is a valid assumption on your part
AND you believe that there is legitimate cause for it to be applied to the current topic
THEN research valid current models of science that explain the physics/etc of whatever you are claiming

Cap'n. what if there ARE no current models to explain it or the current models are just bound up in the "hall of mirrors" effect?

Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Mar 03, 2014
Cap'n. what if there ARE no current models to explain it or the current models are just bound up in the "hall of mirrors" effect?

@Whydening Gyre
good question
my thoughts:
If there are no studies: do one, and get it reviewed/published?

I dont see most posters doing that

for those who will not do their own studies, I guess starting with the basics and working up to a point where there is nothing to reference, while keeping it legit/empirical, then speculate about the rest.
No harm in speculating about something, just as long as it is known as speculation, right?

if there is no study to validate the speculation, then base the speculation upon what IS known & go from there

IMHO - The thing is, too many speculate about the KNOWN science
or try to distort the knowns for personal reasons
then post it as truth/science when it is easily refuted with a 4sec search