Why a rat eradication attempt on Henderson Island failed

Why a rat eradication attempt on Henderson Island failed
Credit: Michael Palmer/Wikipedia/CC BY-SA 4.0

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers the University of Cambridge and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has conducted a case study of a failed rat eradication project on an island in the South Pacific. In their paper published in Royal Society Open Science, the team reports that it has found that the failure was not due to migration of new rats to the island, or some of the rats being able to withstand the poison used, but instead because some of the rats never ate the poison and then began reproducing at a rapid pace.

Approximately 800 years ago Polynesian sailors introduced Pacific to Henderson Island, where they rapidly multiplied. Today there are no people living on the but lots of rats, which is a problem, because they eat the chicks of endangered birds. For that reason, a team with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the government of the Pitcairn Islands decided to solve the problem by killing every rat on the island. A study was conducted and in 2011, a helicopter flew over the island and dropped seventy-five metric tons of at pre-chosen locations—a strategy that had been used successfully on other islands in the South Pacific. Unfortunately, this effort did not prove successful. Today the rat population is back to where it was before the eradication effort was made—approximately 100,000.

In their , the researchers conducted DNA tests to make sure the rats that are there now are not descendents of rats from somewhere else—they were not which ruled out migration of new rats as the problem. The team also ran multiple tests and determined that it was not possible that some of the rats could have survived after eating the rat poison. That left only one possible reason for the failure—some of the rats had not eaten the rat poison, and thus were not killed. After careful analysis, the team suggests that approximately 50 rats likely survived the rat drop and that it was likely due to an unexpected rainfall that had occurred just prior to the rat poison dump—fruit and flowers were plentiful which made the rat poison less of an attractive option. The large number of rats today is the result of the rapid pace of reproduction of the rats—one female bears up to six pups every few months. The Royal Society is not ready to give up however, they plan to try again, but next time around will plan their attack around the weather.


Explore further

New way to smell a rat means end for rodents

More information: W. Amos et al. Rat eradication comes within a whisker! A case study of a failed project from the South Pacific, Royal Society Open Science (2016). DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160110

Abstract
To enhance their conservation value, several hundred islands worldwide have been cleared of invasive alien rats, Rattus spp. One of the largest projects yet undertaken was on 43 km2 Henderson Island in the Pitcairn group, South Pacific, in August 2011. Following massive immediate mortality, a single R. exulans was observed in March 2012 and, subsequently, rat numbers have recovered. The survivors show no sign of resistance to the toxicant used, brodifacoum. Using pre- and post-operation rat tissue samples from Henderson, plus samples from around the Pacific, we exclude re-introduction as the source of continued rat presence. Microsatellite analysis of 18 loci enabled comparison of genetic diversity of Henderson rats before and after the bait drop. The fall in diversity measured by allele frequency change indicated that the bottleneck (Ne) through which the breeding population passed was probably around 50 individuals, representing a census population of about 60–80 animals. This is the first failed project that has estimated how close it was to success.

Journal information: Royal Society Open Science

© 2016 Phys.org

Citation: Why a rat eradication attempt on Henderson Island failed (2016, April 20) retrieved 21 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-04-rat-eradication-henderson-island.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
15 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 20, 2016
Auschwitz comes to mind.


Despicable comment.

Apr 20, 2016
@Nou.

So,you are a Jew hater like freeiam. Not surprised.

Apr 20, 2016
@Nou.

So,you are a Jew hater like freeiam. Not surprised.


Despicable accusation.

Apr 20, 2016
@Phys.Org,

While your banning the first poster in this thread for that post, how about deleting the following also, that obviously only exist to troll-rate comments ....

Shut Up_
maloderousmiscreant
GoshURStupid

Do you have any others "Uncle Ira"?

In fact Phys.Org, how about you disable comment ratings altogether to at least attempt to maintain some semblance of integrity here, like your associate site has done. Thank you.


Apr 21, 2016
Do you have any others "Uncle Ira"?
What the heck are you talking about, eh? I have not written anything for this article Skippy. Yesterday I did not write anything for any article. The day before the only I wrote was for the article about seeing double and that was not to you, it was to Really-Skippy.

I have not written anything to you since we talked about the book about the atomic bomb.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. The day before yesterday I also wrote a message for the Captain-Skippy on the Chernobyl article.

So why you don't just put your silly looking pointy cap back on and go sit down over there in the corner, eh?

Apr 22, 2016
What the heck are you talking about, eh?
@Ira
he is wrongfully ASSuming that the posters listed are your socks

I would ask you to re-post the below to Nou because he says i'm on "ignore"... but i know he's lying anyway, cause he's answered me since then
LOL

.

.

Shut Up_
maloderousmiscreant
GoshURStupid
@Nou
those socks are far more likely to be related to or one of Benni, gkam, o_s, any electric union idiot or some similar troll ... until they post, it will be hard to narrow it down by anything other than uprating
See various posters for details

Ira has only one account, UNLIKE YOURSELF

so your hypocrisy on the whole "challenging the site to maintain some semblance of integrity here" is no different than paid assassins being upset at freelance serial killers for their lack of professionalism...

pot - meet kettle

epic fail, man...

funny... but still an epic fail


Apr 22, 2016
What the heck are you talking about, eh?
@Ira
he is wrongfully ASSuming that the posters listed are your socks


I don't know why he would think that non. Those Skippys all vote me up AND down depending on who I am tussling with at the moment. I think he ought to go after somebody they always vote up every time.

Apr 22, 2016
I don't know why he would think that non. Those Skippys all vote me up AND down depending on who I am tussling with at the moment. I think he ought to go after somebody they always vote up every time.
@Ira
I know, right?

logic isn't one of his strong points, though... see these for more details on that
http://phys.org/n...rth.html

http://phys.org/n...ive.html

of course, either he's started two new socks or zephir is stacking his puppet army again
see:
yezi
yiyifiso

either way, it's blatant hypocrisy on his part

Apr 23, 2016

We know all about the blatant hypocrisy of those who demand proof from others, but are too SCARED to provide any themselves.

Apr 23, 2016
I don't know why he would think tha


Because those cowardly troll-puppets 1-rated me, and 5-rated Vietvet within minutes of you doing the same (uprating Vietvet).

Of course zephir would not care to uprate Vietvet and down rate me in that conversation. It obviously had to be one of the circle-jerk troll rating cabal.


Apr 23, 2016
troll rating
@Nou
troll
a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement
https://en.wikipe...et_troll

that would include self-aggrandizement like philo in science posts
ratings
A rating is the evaluation or assessment of something, in terms of quality (as with a critic rating a novel), quantity (as with an athlete being rated by his or her statistics), or some combination of both
https://en.wikipe...i/Rating

troll rating is for pissing people off

i never troll rate, which is why i seldom rate you at all

but don't let the *facts* interfere with your philo arguments
you never have before

Apr 23, 2016
@Nou cont'd
troll rating
do i need to address the "cabal" point? no one can force another to have an opinion, thus your claims of "rating cabals" are all nonsensical just like rc's claims
in fact, in order to have a "cabal" we would need to have PM's and you could then provide evidence... which you can't

so lets talk about troll rating
if troll rating is designed to piss people off or intentionally misrepresent the situation, then, by definition, your use of socks to rate is "troll rating" as well as a definite "cabal" as you are in command of the outcome of all ratings of all socks, but give the impression of a solidified front of multiple people (even though we know it is just you)

so again, your hypocrisy is blatantly obvious as well as demonstrably stupid, especially with your claims of conspiracist ideation

but again, let me reiterate a point

... don't let the *facts* interfere with your philo arguments
you never have before

Apr 23, 2016
Because those cowardly troll-puppets 1-rated me, and 5-rated Vietvet within minutes of you doing the same (uprating Vietvet).


I up voted the Viet-Skippy like I always do. I did not down vote you until you make the silly accusing of me about puppets. Those same peoples down vote me sometimes and up vote me other times. Depending on who I am bickering with. If I argue with Bennie-Skippy they down vote me. If I argue with Mike-The-Skippy they up vote me. If I argue with the Really-Skippy they mostly down vote me. If I argue with the glam-Skippy they mostly up vote me. There are some peoples that ALL those puppets ALWAYS up vote, and some other peoples they ALWAYS down vote.

Why it is that couyons like you think that if several peoples think something different from you they must all be one people? You really think you are so wise and smart that it is impossible more than one person in the whole world could be so stupid as to not notice how smart you are?

Apr 23, 2016
@IRA
epic win! 100stars!

here is another point
Quòd tertio loco à nobis fuit obſeruatum, eſt ipſiuſmet LACTEI Circuli eſſentia, ſeu materies, quam Perſpicilli beneficio adeò ad ſenſum licet intueri, vt & altercationes omnes, quæ per tot ſæcula Philoſophos excrucia runt ab oculata certitudine dirimantur, nosque à verboſis dſputationibus liberemur.
Original text as reproduced in Edward Tufte, Beautiful Evidence (Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press LLC, 2006), 101 (p. 3 of 4, insert between pp. 16V & 17R. Original manuscript renders the "q" in "nosque" with acute accent.)
Translation by Albert Van Helden in Sidereus Nuncius (Chicago, 1989)

"What was observed by us in the third place is the nature or matter of the Milky Way itself, which, with the aid of the spyglass, may be observed so well that all the disputes that for so many generations have vexed philosophers are destroyed by visible certainty, and we are liberated from wordy arguments."

2Bcont'd

Apr 23, 2016
cont'd
so that means...Galileo is trying to drum into us that contemplation alone, without observation of nature, is totally useless in coming up with an accurate picture of nature
this is stated by Dr. James Gates in the following: 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate
https://www.youtu...mp;t=136

so, whereas you can always fond someone like nou who wants to promote their philo discussion, it will always be subjective because without evidence or the constraints of the scientific method, it is just opinionated hot air and literally "wordy arguments" per Galileo himself

this is why philo isn't science

this is also why argument from philo is purely subjective to the individual


Apr 23, 2016
so, whereas you can always fond someone like nou who wants to promote their philo discussion, it will always be subjective because without evidence or the constraints of the scientific method, it is just opinionated hot air and literally "wordy arguments"


Since I have never had a philosophy of physics discussion with you, or even of physics itself, all your own asinine responses to me are not even ABOUT anything of substance, but instead wordy nothingness and vacuous generalities.

When I make a post, at least it is ABOUT something. Your inability to do the same, leads you to attack an entire branch of thought instead of focusing on what is actually being said,.... and not even with knowledge that interpretations of QM ARE philosophy of physics.

On ignore again,.... for awhile.

Apr 23, 2016
.... and what is particularly egregious is the fact that you would make such a statement, all the while pontificating ad nauseum about 'constraints of the scientific method' without even the understanding that that IS philosophy of science,…. that it is legitimate Science to interpret, analyze, hypothesize, postulate, and analyze concepts used in experiment, particularly when it may expose such constraints,..i.e. theoretical physics.

By your own misunderstood standards of science,... it would be necessary to engage me in Detail about the Actual topic posted if you even had an articulated objection, rather than go off to an irrelevant tangent about anti-philosophy.

Apr 23, 2016
.....I've been posting since 2007 and have NEVER put forward a "new theory" that is in need of 'new evidence',.. so even the premise of your "responses" are a fallacy,.... utterly unbeknownst to you because you don't actually care about substance.


Apr 23, 2016
@Noumenon
@Nou.

So,you are a Jew hater like freeiam. Not surprised.


Despicable accusation.

It is a harch comment indeed, why would you deserve that?

Apr 23, 2016
@Noumenon
@Nou.

So,you are a Jew hater like freeiam. Not surprised.


Despicable accusation.

It is a harch comment indeed, why would you deserve that?


Indeed, why? I have never uttered nor posted an antisemitic comment,.... so it can't be that.

Vietvet actually knows why he was downrated*. His hypocrisy was feigned to make it appear to others that I agreed with 'freeiam'. That's how despicable he is.

*His incessant 1- rating of my, at minimum reasonable-posts or opinions, without explanation. Had I made posts that were factually wrong, then I would expect a 1-rating,... but not for a point of view, opinion, or observation, or historical fact.


Apr 24, 2016
On ignore again,.... for awhile
@Nou
you said that days ago... but still read and downrate... either you're lying to save face or ???
leads you to attack an entire branch of thought
i guess you missed that part about Galileo or science in general?
contemplation alone, without observation of nature, is totally useless in coming up with an accurate picture of nature
wanna try again?
When I make a post, at least it is ABOUT something
and that something is usually called "opinion" because it is subjective philo bullsh*t... and even i have uprated your actual science
still an epic fail, nou
I've been posting since 2007 and have NEVER put forward a "new theory"
Ah, the red-herring and strawman combination! care to actually put together an actual factual observation of what was said?

what i posted above is proven & factual, including about you
it's also relevant to the conversation with links/ref's

so far, you're just deflecting with no evidence

Apr 24, 2016
@Noumenon
The first comment on this page is particularly disgusting. I would not have been aware of it if Vietvet would not have denounced it. So I took the time to take freakIam out of 'ignore' to downgrade and report his comment. Then I had tipped my hat to Vietvet (I mean gave him a 5); that is the only right thing to do under those circumstances. There was no who's right and who's wrong, it was unequivocal. I understand that you and Vietvet have no affinities, but there are times that you must look away from your little afflicted navel and make a strong statement against inappropriate comments. On those occasions you must not look at who you are standing with, but what you are fighting against. How can you miss this?

Apr 24, 2016
@TechnoCreed,.... Above in this thread, I'm the one who requested Phys.Org to delete the original posters account. How can you miss this?

If you downrated vietvet, then why are you surprised Noumenon?


I rarely 1-rate others, except as a response to their abuse of the rating system. This isn't facebook,... if I post a legitimate opinion it should not be 1-rated.


Apr 24, 2016
Above in this thread, I'm the one who requested Phys.Org to delete the original posters account. How can you miss this?
@Nou
no... you're the only one who decided to grandstand and make sure everyone knew you didn't like the post... there is a difference

actions speak louder than words
this is why your hypocrisy shouts about your epic failures to be able to present a logical well thought out argument for or against a topic (be it philosophy or otherwise)...
you think it's logical to create socks to uprate yourself for the sake of self-promotion - so what makes you different than zeph or any other pseudoscience cult member?

not a thing...
if I post a legitimate opinion it should not be 1-rated
ah, so only "YOUR" opinion shouldn't be one-rated?

wow... now that is demonstrably D-K, with a lot of narcissistic APD as well, eh?

why should "your" opinion be any better than anyone else?
and that right there is just one more reason to downrate you

Apr 24, 2016
your epic failures to be able to present a logical well thought out argument for or against a topic (be it philosophy or otherwise)...


I have never had a discussion with you about physics, or philosophy of physics. I post a comment ABOUT something, and you desire to turn the discussion into one about the validity of philosophy in general,... all the while avoiding the substance of the comment. Fraudulent. I even reference prominent physicist and provide links,... all ignore by you because you don't have interest in the substance of my post,... but only to reiterate your ignorant anti-philo vagueness.

At anytime you are free to engage in detailed discussion about what was posted,.... but instead you simply post your subjective "characterizations" of my comments or philosophy in general and do not counter those comments with any articulated and detailed substantive counter points. If you have nothing to say ON TOPIC to the given post, then stay quite.


Apr 24, 2016
@Noumenon
Vietvet actually knows why he was downrated*. His hypocrisy was feigned to make it appear to others that I agreed with 'freeiam'. That's how despicable he is.

The important thing is that our collective effort came through and Physorg deleted freeiam's comment. Notice, I deliberately used the word 'collective', I know how much you like this word ;-)
Vietvet's comment was made to bring some reflection on the immature gesture you posed. Vietvet vote almost systematically on the comments he read, he vote according to his conscience and he does not vote blindly. I see a 5 for you from Vietvet on March 14 2016 5:44pm and there is also a 5 for freeiam on February 25 2016.
Subscribing to Physorg gives anybody the right to express their approval through voting... There are over 7 billion people on this planet and, here on the web, we are right in the middle of this crowd. If you defend controversial positions, you should also accept the verdict that comes with it.

Apr 25, 2016
and do not counter those comments with any articulated and detailed substantive counter points. If you have nothing to say ON TOPIC to the given post, then stay quite
@Nou
1- the only thing that is required to refute opinion is a different opinion - and "opinion" is pretty much all that you offer when you pontificate about your philo beliefs

why should "your" opinion be any better than anyone else?

2- it is on topic to discuss science and pseudoscience. and philo doesn't meet the requirements of science, therefore...

3- it is also on topic to point out your hypocrisy and demonstrate your failure for the sake of new readers
-call it a public service announcement or warning

4- you're not a MOD

unless you can actually substantiate your claims (like i did) then the failure is on you, not i

and again: contemplation alone, without observation [evidence], is totally useless in coming up with an accurate picture of nature

May 03, 2016
He's off his rocker and over the top with megalomania even by PO trolls standards. He seems about ready to implode. I'm going to sit back with some popcorn.

May 03, 2016
He's off his rocker and over the top with megalomania even by PO trolls standards. He seems about ready to implode. I'm going to sit back with some popcorn.


Yes, indeed popcorn,... clearly you're not here to discuss anything of substance. You are here only to disrupt with your vacuous and subjective characterizations, and massive sock-puppet troll-rating brigade ....

jim_xanara
AGreatWhopper
chileastro
antigoresockpuppet
fckthierreyhenry
BongThePuffin
john berry_hobbes
maloderousmiscreant
YoureAPeanut
GoshURStupid
jljenkins
NiteSkyGerl

as proven in this thread....

http://phys.org/n...lth.html

You're just another ignorant nobody that would rather waste your time amusing yourself playing with phys.org, than actually making substantive posts.


May 03, 2016
I'd say that beats the hell out of "here with your Hume-twisted, very inadequate reading of Kant, from a philo wannabee". You've made the same accusation about me (and about two dozen other contributors). I'll bet we've all pretty much the same reasons.

Hey, I turned down a doctoral program position at Yale, specializing in Heidegger through Kant for a hard, advanced science degree. I'll give a substantive comment when I see something substantive to respond to. You have a problem with my Makemake's moon article comment? I have plenty of substance. That's because I don't waste it on wannabees like you.

Pearls, swine...

May 03, 2016
I have never had a discussion with you on physics, nor philosophy of physics, nor anything about Kant,... and I have been posting here for eight years,... so your post above is nothing more than a "subjective characterization".

Do you even know the difference between an articulated counter argument and a subjective-characterization?

Why did you mass-troll-rate me in the following thread?.....

http://phys.org/n...ite.html

You are intellectually corrupt.


May 03, 2016
That's because I don't waste it on wannabees like you. - john berry_hobbes


But yet you would waste time clicking on 1's for every one of my posts even back 7 pages [so far], .....as anyone can verify at my profile page....

https://sciencex....n/?v=act

You are a fraud and a categorical liar, as well as the most prolific troll at phys.org.

No one who has "specialized in Heidegger through Kant" would ever waste such amount of time as to troll-rate hundreds of my posts, en masse with a dozen sock-puppets,.... in lieu of EVER having engaged in substantively articulated discussion.


May 03, 2016
Why did you mass-troll-rate me...
@Nou
i hate to keep pointing out the blatantly obvious hypocrisy but... would that be like downrating some like, say... myself, in another thread because you didn't like the comment despite it being 100% factual AND science?
or because you think someone "troll rates" so you will simply "troll rate"?

because i've seen you do this to me as well
(Karma is a bitch, eh?)

yeah, i've downrated some of your technically correct comments because i don't agree with the content and it was philo, not science (like when you are fighting with Otto)

... but that doesn't mean i disagree with the technical content, just the representation or "your" interpretations of it, which is NOT TROLL RATING

it is rating based upon my own criteria, which is science based, not philo based

and considering that philo is entirely subjective then why would you get mad at anyone who doesn't agree?
Everyone has a different opinion

May 04, 2016
As usual you don't know what you're talking about.

Have a look at my profile page,... as you can see I was massively troll rated by the same pack-of-screen names within the same time period,....

NiteSkyGerl
antigoresockpuppet
fckthierreyhenry
BongThePuffin
john berry_hobbes
maloderousmiscreant
YoureAPeanut
GoshURStupid
tooty
jim_xanara
AGreatWhopper
chileastro

I have also demonstrated that several on that list have the same Web-DNA,... in This Thread. I don't believe in coincidences.


May 04, 2016
I was massively troll rated
Yeah... you know i have been downrated by most of them too, right?

so it is not "troll rating" so much as they disliked what was being said
you know... actual rating?
the whole "they have a set of criteria that is subjective based upon their own opinions" thingy i mentioned above??
I don't believe in coincidences
neither do i, but you're not proving anything except that you don't like it when you're downrated, or you feel the need to denigrate those who don't agree with you

now, if the entire list was posting pseudoscience and believing in the aether or some BS like verkle/cantdrive/jvk, you can make the claim

But i can tell you that the above list (mostly) just doesn't like the bickering, fighting, anti-science posting or philo crap!

I can accept the downrate with honestly and re-think my tactics...
the question now is: why can't you?

do you really think you're more intelligent than anyone else?

May 04, 2016
@nou cont'd
the downrating i rec'd from certain individuals above gave me pause to reconsider my tactics
- IOW, i considered that given the rating issue and commonality of the ratings that perhaps it wasn't *they* who were the problem, but me
... the same Web-DNA
you can also see a similar "web-DNA" between myself and some other posters here that are well known, except that we're completely different people on different coasts or even in different countries

more to the point, your "DNA" was based on ONE WORD????
"wisdumb"??

really?
(sorry, but an epic fail there)

problem: there are a LOT of posters who are obvious trolls who simply repeat from others

examples include: liar-kam, Alche, Waterprofit, CD85, hannes, yep, shooty, and even bschott (his analogy vs evidence arguments)

so regurgitation of a single "word" that they happen to like from someone else isn't "web-DNA" (like Otto's or even your own words i've used here and elsewhere)
does that mean i'm YOU?

May 04, 2016
@nou lastly - lets talk about Web-DNA
this is typically sought by checking terminology, word use, common tactics, spelling mistakes (intentional or otherwise), and much more

but unless there is a huge correlation in a lot of seen and measured data, then it can't be stated with any "authority" as this is even contested in forensic examinations of questionable documents

IOW - to make the "DNA" stick, it needs a lot of correlating data from multiple areas, web-sites, searches, and separate profiles to show a common user. Plus, it is well known that certain users who "associate" regularly tend to take up each others quirks from time to time

if you're going to make the claim, you better come back with more than just a single word search on PO

otherwise you're just fishing for admission (which you didn't get, BTW)

perhaps you should study interrogation techniques? or actual science based non-philo stuff like forensics? questionable doc's? etc

May 05, 2016
Noumenon 1 /5 (5) 23 hours ago

As usual you don't know what you're talking about.
-lots of blather and slander-
I don't believe in coincidences.


And there you have the perpetual first and last words out of the mouth of any garden variety conspiracy nutter!

May 05, 2016
If Stumpy cared about evidence, he would simply click on my profile page and see the same pack of screen-names above has 1-rated every one of my comments as far back as 6 pages including purely factual ones.... this was done within minutes as I was online at the time.

https://sciencex....ml?v=act


May 05, 2016
If Stumpy cared about evidence, he would simply click on my profile page and see the same pack of screen-names above has 1-rated every one of my comments as far back as 6 pages including purely factual ones
@nou
1- i did
2- when you piss people off, that kinda tends to happen
3- not everyone uses the same voting criteria that you do, and i can guarantee you've done the exact same thing in the past (as in downrating factually accurate posts just because you didn't like what they said - i've been the recipient)

so they don't like you

perhaps that is a good indication that you have a problem and should consider a change?
It sure made me reconsider

there are only three things you can do with any situation
live with it
change it
walk away from it

PS- ASSuming that i didn't look at your page? you should have asked
(Karma is a bitch, eh?)

May 05, 2016
I assumed you didn't look at my page because you put forth the absurd narrative that all those posts were legitimately rated with 1's by separate individual objective people,... all within the same time period.

If you were interested in objectivity you could verify the absurdity of this yourself, and even see that many on that list in various combinations post in sequence in several threads. They are all controlled by the same half-wit.

So tell me, did all or even some of my posts in the following thread deserve a 1. They were about science as much as was DaSchnieb and Phys1 posts....

http://phys.org/n...ite.html

WRT, web-DNA,.... if the word googled was ubiquitous and not distinctive, then other screen-names would have shown up in the results, ....other than ONLY that which I listed and had ALREADY identified as having massively troll-rated me within the same given time period for 5 pages of posts.


May 05, 2016
I assumed you didn't look at my page because you put forth the absurd narrative that all those posts were legitimately rated with 1's by separate individual objective people,... all within the same time period
@Nou
you know what happens when you ASSume, right?
you could verify
if it is the same person it would require multiple computers with multiple IP or multiple TOR accounts unless you know of a way to open multiple accounts at the same time on the same computer with the same IP

now, i have noted that some of those people mentioned post within 20sec to 1 minute of each other, so that kinda gives your hypothesis a problem, doesn't it? (at least that is what the time-stamp shows on *my* PC)

this is essentially the alche/uba/obama_s argument you're making - with absolutely no evidence whatsoever

just because you don't like what they vote/state doesn't mean they're the same person unless you can prove it, and one word as DNA not enough as "proof"

2Bcon't

May 05, 2016
@nou cont'd
did all or even some of my posts in the following thread deserve a 1
why is my OPINION relevant to their voting practice?
it's not - because i use a different method than they do, or you do, etc
WRT, web-DNA
and again, if a word tends to be distinctive etc, it can also be liked or "stolen" by others
such as the word "acolyte" for the trolls/pseudoscience eu cult etc

what you need is not "just" a word, but a typical syntax repetition (spelling/grammar/unique word use) in combination with a lot of other stuff
zephir uses the same typical syntax which narrows down his parent language, typical links embedded in text, typical topics, etc... that is how "web DNA" works
what you have is at best a point of interest, but can't guarantee anything with any accuracy because there isn't enough information

i suggest studying the forensic document examination procedures and other methods (for more info)
sometimes its offered in PI tech schools or to undergrads

May 05, 2016
@nou last
They were about science as much as was DaSchnieb and Phys1 posts
but neither of them are condescending philo advocates, so i tend to uprate them with more regularity

i also tend to uprate them even if i disagree (like i also do with AA_P and others) because they make me think about something differently or b/c they offer a compelling evidence based argument

whereas i tend to just ignore what you post, which is why i typically don't even vote on what you say... and because you make unsubstantiated claims like
They are all controlled by the same half-wit
or make comments like
you put my posts into a blender before responding to them
when i directly quote you

but that's just me, and how *i* tend to be
i can't judge another unless they're stupidly obvious (like zeph, cd, liar-kam, benni, bschott, hannes, etc) and you've not made that case yet

Especially since i've been rated by the same crowd - but took pains to figure out WHY

Jun 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more