let's be humble !

On 14 Feb 2004 16:45:09 -0800, (Chris.B) wrote:


As to "wayyyy off-topic" (and I do so hate the 'wayyyy' these awful
corruptions of decent, basic English are becoming the norm here, even
amongst those claiming to be 'educated'): Is there anything that is
not off-topic for this newsgroup? Porn, astrology, football & politics
are quite the norm! By which standards do you judge me differently
Sir?

"wayyyyy" = Phoenetic spelling of how one would speak "way" to
emphasize a very off-topic post. sci.astro.amateur =
Science.Astronomy.Amateur. Would you walk into a church yelling an
anti-insert deity here tirade? Hence the troll comment. (see
http://www.wordiq.com/cgi-bin/knowle...Internet_troll
esp. section on Inflammatory messages e.g. "Dead Man Walking!"

I won't embarrass you regarding your almost ubiquitous "modern
education" cliché slur by revealing my true age or where I was
'improved'. ;-)

As to "troll"? Are you really labelling and de-humanising a fellow
human being's response to a humble newsgroup post with a supposed
alternative opinion to your own? And one that you patently
misunderstood in your knee-jerk haste to come to Greg's (and all
science's) defense?


I defend the scientific method of hypothesis and observation, and
re-evaluation as new observations are made. I have little time nor
patience for astrology, superstition, religion, or so-called
metaphysics. I enjoy fantasy in the context of a good beach-read e.g
Guy Gavriel Kay, Jack Whyte, Tolkien.

"None of these images or developements were forecast by your dead
minded 'scientific thinking' brethren. Locked into their
'backwatching' and 'back stabbing' hierarchical trials of egoistic
strength and increased paper production. One can almost see the ever
watchful monks scratching at their ancient desks waiting for a slip of
the tongue in ever-guarded conversation."

"Your kind lack the imagination to see anything beyond the grey
evidence before them. Never daring to question, never daring to dream.
For they are but wasted effort on your endless road to labelling
everything in your greying latin manuscript to "acceptable" human
knowledge."

Who's de-humanising and passing judgement on whom? IMHO, your post is
an inappropriate philosophical venting. You have the right to speak
your mind, just use the wisdom of your "true age" to speak it in an
appropriate venue.

Good day.

- Craig

Greg,

My opinion is based on *observations* and deep reflexions, did you pay attentions to the links I posted ???

What evidence do you have for their color?
The blue color !!! Please see for yourself.
http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...4L5L6.jpg.html
http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...4L5L6.jpg.html

Did you made your own opinion based direct observation, or are you just arguing ?

Again, I think you are wrong about this. The science is not that
compartmentalized. We have cameras that can reveal changes over time,
we have instruments that can tell us the composition of the objects. We
even have an instrument that can grind them open to see inside. I fail
to see how these things would miss them as some life form unless they
are very, very subtle forms of life. And if that were true, then I
don't see how we could have designed a mission to look for these life
forms without first having some clues as to what to look for. Again,
you are assuming far too much, both in your analysis and in your narrow
view of the scientists involved.

I agree about this and I apologise for my wrong statement on this point, my mistake ! )

Lastly, I am not even convinced that these same spherules have been
found at the Spirit site. If these are the same spherules, they are
much smaller... And I see no evidence at all that they are "blue" as
you stated earlier. What evidence do you have for their color? I do
see many tiny grains that look like they have weathered out of nearby
rocks. At the limit of the resolution of the images I'm not ready to
call them spherical. Hey--maybe they are, but I for one require a bit
more evidence before I start considering the implications of something,
with well, rather interesting implications.

They may not be the very same spherules but please again see for yourself :

Color picture :
http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...4L5L6.jpg.html

Microscopic here
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2943M2M1.HTML
they are all dead and faded here ))))) (seriously I don't know yet ... to be followed)

My time is precious, too precious to spend too much time arguing here, I'll post back here with more clues only !

Best regards and have a nice Sunday,
ERic Pouhier


"Greg Crinklaw" a écrit dans le message news: ...
Eric Pouhier wrote:
I do not exclude that it could be petrifications of life or direct
effects of life, but just rocks is doubtful … my humble opinion ).

Why? What do you base your opinion on? At the moment there are many
geological interpretations for these. You have jumped to a conclusion
based on your own imperfect analysis. I offered an alternate
explanation for your light and dark spherules. But you ignored that,
didn't you? Instead, you cling to your conclusion. Who has the open
mind here? I'm sorry, but that sort of thing is the sign of a closed,
irrational mind. Sorry, there just isn't any nice way to say that! You
are proceeding very unscientifically, nd let me warn you right now,
without the scientific method we are adrift, able to believe anything we
wish to believe, regardless of the truth.

Too much prudence Greg, the hypothesis of direct life discovery was
eliminated (based on scientists current knowledge and budget) and the
rovers were engineered mainly for geologists (e.g. nasa is not able to
certify true colours pictures !).

I disagree.

As a result of the "geological design" of the rovers, the nature of the
spherules may not be scientifically determined during this missions, due
to the lack of imagination among humans. But this is not the fault of
anyone and I'm not blaming anyone, it is just due to the weak human
thinking structures and ability, the global lack of imagination .
Humility, humility, humility… )

Again, I think you are wrong about this. The science is not that
compartmentalized. We have cameras that can reveal changes over time,
we have instruments that can tell us the composition of the objects. We
even have an instrument that can grind them open to see inside. I fail
to see how these things would miss them as some life form unless they
are very, very subtle forms of life. And if that were true, then I
don't see how we could have designed a mission to look for these life
forms without first having some clues as to what to look for. Again,
you are assuming far too much, both in your analysis and in your narrow
view of the scientists involved.

Lastly, I am not even convinced that these same spherules have been
found at the Spirit site. If these are the same spherules, they are
much smaller... And I see no evidence at all that they are "blue" as
you stated earlier. What evidence do you have for their color? I do
see many tiny grains that look like they have weathered out of nearby
rocks. At the limit of the resolution of the images I'm not ready to
call them spherical. Hey--maybe they are, but I for one require a bit
more evidence before I start considering the implications of something,
with well, rather interesting implications.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

Greg,

My opinion is based on *observations* and deep reflexions, did you pay attentions to the links I posted ???

What evidence do you have for their color?
The blue color !!! Please see for yourself.
http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...4L5L6.jpg.html
http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...4L5L6.jpg.html

Did you made your own opinion based direct observation, or are you just arguing ?

Again, I think you are wrong about this. The science is not that
compartmentalized. We have cameras that can reveal changes over time,
we have instruments that can tell us the composition of the objects. We
even have an instrument that can grind them open to see inside. I fail
to see how these things would miss them as some life form unless they
are very, very subtle forms of life. And if that were true, then I
don't see how we could have designed a mission to look for these life
forms without first having some clues as to what to look for. Again,
you are assuming far too much, both in your analysis and in your narrow
view of the scientists involved.

I agree about this and I apologise for my wrong statement on this point, my mistake ! )

Lastly, I am not even convinced that these same spherules have been
found at the Spirit site. If these are the same spherules, they are
much smaller... And I see no evidence at all that they are "blue" as
you stated earlier. What evidence do you have for their color? I do
see many tiny grains that look like they have weathered out of nearby
rocks. At the limit of the resolution of the images I'm not ready to
call them spherical. Hey--maybe they are, but I for one require a bit
more evidence before I start considering the implications of something,
with well, rather interesting implications.

They may not be the very same spherules but please again see for yourself :

Color picture :
http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...4L5L6.jpg.html

Microscopic here
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2943M2M1.HTML
they are all dead and faded here ))))) (seriously I don't know yet ... to be followed)

My time is precious, too precious to spend too much time arguing here, I'll post back here with more clues only !

Best regards and have a nice Sunday,
ERic Pouhier


"Greg Crinklaw" a écrit dans le message news: ...
Eric Pouhier wrote:
I do not exclude that it could be petrifications of life or direct
effects of life, but just rocks is doubtful … my humble opinion ).

Why? What do you base your opinion on? At the moment there are many
geological interpretations for these. You have jumped to a conclusion
based on your own imperfect analysis. I offered an alternate
explanation for your light and dark spherules. But you ignored that,
didn't you? Instead, you cling to your conclusion. Who has the open
mind here? I'm sorry, but that sort of thing is the sign of a closed,
irrational mind. Sorry, there just isn't any nice way to say that! You
are proceeding very unscientifically, nd let me warn you right now,
without the scientific method we are adrift, able to believe anything we
wish to believe, regardless of the truth.

Too much prudence Greg, the hypothesis of direct life discovery was
eliminated (based on scientists current knowledge and budget) and the
rovers were engineered mainly for geologists (e.g. nasa is not able to
certify true colours pictures !).

I disagree.

As a result of the "geological design" of the rovers, the nature of the
spherules may not be scientifically determined during this missions, due
to the lack of imagination among humans. But this is not the fault of
anyone and I'm not blaming anyone, it is just due to the weak human
thinking structures and ability, the global lack of imagination .
Humility, humility, humility… )

Again, I think you are wrong about this. The science is not that
compartmentalized. We have cameras that can reveal changes over time,
we have instruments that can tell us the composition of the objects. We
even have an instrument that can grind them open to see inside. I fail
to see how these things would miss them as some life form unless they
are very, very subtle forms of life. And if that were true, then I
don't see how we could have designed a mission to look for these life
forms without first having some clues as to what to look for. Again,
you are assuming far too much, both in your analysis and in your narrow
view of the scientists involved.

Lastly, I am not even convinced that these same spherules have been
found at the Spirit site. If these are the same spherules, they are
much smaller... And I see no evidence at all that they are "blue" as
you stated earlier. What evidence do you have for their color? I do
see many tiny grains that look like they have weathered out of nearby
rocks. At the limit of the resolution of the images I'm not ready to
call them spherical. Hey--maybe they are, but I for one require a bit
more evidence before I start considering the implications of something,
with well, rather interesting implications.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

Scientists don't lack imagination. They lack funding.
So true, so sad ! And yes scientists are not all suffuring from lack of
imagination, thanks God )
Cheers, ERic

Scientists don't lack imagination. They lack funding.
So true, so sad ! And yes scientists are not all suffuring from lack of
imagination, thanks God )
Cheers, ERic

"Mike Ruskai" wrote in message t.earthlink.net...

Yet the affliction you display deserves pity, even if some of us lack the
patience to grant it. Few things are more sad than when a person fails to
find joy in reality, and must invent a universe which does not exist, into
which he or she promptly attempts to flee.

Do pay attention at the back! The ability to read and understand
simple English seems to have completely failed you too. The wonder of
reality was exactly what I was promoting. eg. The Saturnian and Jovian
moons. Yet you throw my own argument back at me as if you had invented
it and I was decrying it!
Try reading the whole thread. Despite the fervent support for the
scientific method I've seen bugger all of it so far in this thread.
Who's imagination is running riot here? I hereby nominate you for the
post of Deputy Witchfinder General. Though it's only an imaginary
post. So don't start burning anyone until you get the uniform in the
post. ;-)

Chris.B

"Mike Ruskai" wrote in message t.earthlink.net...

Yet the affliction you display deserves pity, even if some of us lack the
patience to grant it. Few things are more sad than when a person fails to
find joy in reality, and must invent a universe which does not exist, into
which he or she promptly attempts to flee.

Do pay attention at the back! The ability to read and understand
simple English seems to have completely failed you too. The wonder of
reality was exactly what I was promoting. eg. The Saturnian and Jovian
moons. Yet you throw my own argument back at me as if you had invented
it and I was decrying it!
Try reading the whole thread. Despite the fervent support for the
scientific method I've seen bugger all of it so far in this thread.
Who's imagination is running riot here? I hereby nominate you for the
post of Deputy Witchfinder General. Though it's only an imaginary
post. So don't start burning anyone until you get the uniform in the
post. ;-)

Chris.B

Greg Crinklaw wrote in message ...

Oh, look, my enemies jump right in there whenever I get criticized (and
unjustly I might add). Feel better now asshole?

--
Greg Crinklaw

Language please Greg! The paranoioa is showing again. You have no
enemies except in your imagination. You probably have no real critics
either in your real world. Merely those that choose to occasionally
disagree with your choice of words on the odd astro newsgroup posting.
Which is only another imaginary concept after all. None of us really
exist beyond the text of our computer screens. The personalities we
endow to these usernames are completely insubstantial. So they must be
quite simply imaginary. Isn't that a wonderful scientific concept? ;-)

Maltesers
Chris.B

Greg Crinklaw wrote in message ...

Oh, look, my enemies jump right in there whenever I get criticized (and
unjustly I might add). Feel better now asshole?

--
Greg Crinklaw

Language please Greg! The paranoioa is showing again. You have no
enemies except in your imagination. You probably have no real critics
either in your real world. Merely those that choose to occasionally
disagree with your choice of words on the odd astro newsgroup posting.
Which is only another imaginary concept after all. None of us really
exist beyond the text of our computer screens. The personalities we
endow to these usernames are completely insubstantial. So they must be
quite simply imaginary. Isn't that a wonderful scientific concept? ;-)

Maltesers
Chris.B

"Chris.B" wrote in message
om...
Greg Crinklaw wrote in message
...

Oh, look, my enemies jump right in there whenever I get criticized (and
unjustly I might add). Feel better now asshole?

--
Greg Crinklaw

Language please Greg! The paranoioa is showing again. You have no
enemies except in your imagination. You probably have no real critics
either in your real world. Merely those that choose to occasionally
disagree with your choice of words on the odd astro newsgroup posting.
Which is only another imaginary concept after all. None of us really
exist beyond the text of our computer screens. The personalities we
endow to these usernames are completely insubstantial. So they must be
quite simply imaginary. Isn't that a wonderful scientific concept? ;-)

Maltesers
Chris.B

I am the person who Mr. Crinklaw calls an "asshole" above. I am not his
enemy, as he believes, I am just a person who would not be browbeaten by
Crinklaw's barrage of innuendo, insults and personal attacks. I never had
any interaction with Crinklaw until a few months ago when Crinklaw tried
desperately to defend his very weak position against Herb York for not
allowing him an astromart account. I really tried to reason with him but he
would not hear of it, instead he labels me his enemy. In an effort to make
the insults end, I filtered him out of my life (some call it PLONKED), and
it works beautifully. (By the way, Crinklaw is only one of 2 people that I
filtered out over a period of years...the other one was Nancy) The only
problem with the filter is that I may still get one of his messages when
someone carries same in his post (like above).

Al