Pseudonyms, deceit and dirty tricks.

On Feb 24, 8:10*pm, " wrote:
On Feb 24, 8:23*am, dlzc wrote:





On Feb 24, 5:07*am, Ian Parker wrote:
...

A number of people are posting against the theory.

*What* theory? *That you feel you are being picked on by a single
person with multiple nyms?

I think this example shows that a few people richly
endowed with pseudonyms can appear a very much
larger group. I feel that Google should go deeper
into this question of pseudonyms
...
This is fun, where there is an intent to deceive firm action
should be taken.

You are deceiving everyone that you are conscious when you post,
apparently. *You make reference to a theory, yet you spend the entire
post talking about one responder.
He wrote: *"am posting this in sci.physics.relativity for the

following reason.
A number of people are posting against the theory."

He has rights to post his thoughts. You doubt so on all counts.

92 percent of the UK population voted against the Iraq war.
That number moved toward 100 percent over time, that
number is 99.9 percent currently. 0.1 percent of the population
are against control, SIEGE and racism.

I have spoken.

And yet you know the answers to the greatest theoretical
astronomy questions which 99.9 percent of the population
does not.

I may still beat your head in a brick wall Der Commissar.

STOP POSTING THIS CRAP TO SCI.SPACE.POLICY!

Why would anybody want to have space policy? Dude, you are over
working.

On Feb 24, 9:42*am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 24 Feb, 15:23, dlzc wrote:



On Feb 24, 5:07*am, Ian Parker wrote:
...

A number of people are posting against the theory.

*What* theory? *That you feel you are being picked on by a single
person with multiple nyms?

I think this example shows that a few people richly
endowed with pseudonyms can appear a very much
larger group. I feel that Google should go deeper
into this question of pseudonyms
...
This is fun, where there is an intent to deceive firm action
should be taken.

You are deceiving everyone that you are conscious when you post,
apparently. *You make reference to a theory, yet you spend the entire
post talking about one responder.

If you've got something to say, stick to the point. *How incensed you
are about a half dozen other things does not matter on any of the
newsgroups you have regurgitated onto.

Well for a start the Einstein Hoax posters are very much of this type.
I think there is a real point. Fred is attemting to stifle all
discussion in sci.space.policy. I think he has been largely successful
in this. The problem is that his ugly mug emerges in other groups too.

Am I making too much of a fuss about one individual. I do not think
so. He has started his infestation elsewhere. I believe that all
unmoderated groups are at potential risk.

What happenned and what has escalated is that I am a bit of an
enthusiast about AI. Fred says that AI is totally insane quite
forgeting that the Pentagon is deeply involved in AI too.

What in fact triggered this latest round of vituperation is that there
was a thread intoduced by Martha Adams on the future of human
spaceflight. I posted saying (and giving references) that any view of
the future had to take into account what people like Kurtzweil was
saying. Fred accused me of being insane.

Problem was that a few days later came an announcement that NASA had
in fact signed up to the "Singularity University" and that the brass
of NASA were saying that new technology was needed if NASA was to
achieve its goals.

One would have thought this would have shut him up but no. Deirdre
then started up and sallied forth. Saying I was arrogant, how nice to
be always right etc. etc. Consistently refusing to discuss any real
issues.

Fred and sidekick are NOT just two posters. They are pasrt of a
concerted disinformation campaign. This campaign includes the Einstein
Hoax. They are both out on a limb. In this latest thread they are BOTH
guilty of identity theft. They are in short professional disinformers.

This is something that threatens ALL unmoderated groups. I sometimes
feel that the days of the completely unmoderated group may be drawing
to a close.

This identity theft is a serious matter. I am going to write to the
REAL Deirdre telling her of the situation.

* - Ian Parker

There are stalkers online. My name is used in the email of my stalker.
That is not right, and terror is induced in a family. Barack Obama
promised
today to stand up to online problems. We cannot do much because they
are in many other countries. To pay tens of thousands of dollars to
travel
to another country to a lawsuit is not something many do. Yet misery
means
nothing to them, but you grewn up in a place where they use terms on
us and
them grounds, in ways higher imperialistic, outdated and neglectful.
You
won't understand a word anyway of what I say. That 0.1 percent of the
UK population is here online. 92 percent of the UK population voted
against
the Iraq war, that number moved toward 100 percent over time,
currently
at 99.9 percent of the UK population. The rest immensed in virulant
siege,
control and racism and totalitarian form taking of other people's ID,
name and identity are found online. They are fascists.

On Feb 24, 8:36*pm, " wrote:
On Feb 24, 9:42*am, Ian Parker wrote:





On 24 Feb, 15:23, dlzc wrote:

On Feb 24, 5:07*am, Ian Parker wrote:
...

A number of people are posting against the theory.

*What* theory? *That you feel you are being picked on by a single
person with multiple nyms?

I think this example shows that a few people richly
endowed with pseudonyms can appear a very much
larger group. I feel that Google should go deeper
into this question of pseudonyms
...
This is fun, where there is an intent to deceive firm action
should be taken.

You are deceiving everyone that you are conscious when you post,
apparently. *You make reference to a theory, yet you spend the entire
post talking about one responder.

If you've got something to say, stick to the point. *How incensed you
are about a half dozen other things does not matter on any of the
newsgroups you have regurgitated onto.

Well for a start the Einstein Hoax posters are very much of this type.
I think there is a real point. Fred is attemting to stifle all
discussion in sci.space.policy. I think he has been largely successful
in this. The problem is that his ugly mug emerges in other groups too.

Am I making too much of a fuss about one individual. I do not think
so. He has started his infestation elsewhere. I believe that all
unmoderated groups are at potential risk.

What happenned and what has escalated is that I am a bit of an
enthusiast about AI. Fred says that AI is totally insane quite
forgeting that the Pentagon is deeply involved in AI too.

What in fact triggered this latest round of vituperation is that there
was a thread intoduced by Martha Adams on the future of human
spaceflight. I posted saying (and giving references) that any view of
the future had to take into account what people like Kurtzweil was
saying. Fred accused me of being insane.

Problem was that a few days later came an announcement that NASA had
in fact signed up to the "Singularity University" and that the brass
of NASA were saying that new technology was needed if NASA was to
achieve its goals.

One would have thought this would have shut him up but no. Deirdre
then started up and sallied forth. Saying I was arrogant, how nice to
be always right etc. etc. Consistently refusing to discuss any real
issues.

Fred and sidekick are NOT just two posters. They are pasrt of a
concerted disinformation campaign. This campaign includes the Einstein
Hoax. They are both out on a limb. In this latest thread they are BOTH
guilty of identity theft. They are in short professional disinformers.

This is something that threatens ALL unmoderated groups. I sometimes
feel that the days of the completely unmoderated group may be drawing
to a close.

This identity theft is a serious matter. I am going to write to the
REAL Deirdre telling her of the situation.

* - Ian Parker

There are stalkers online. My name is used in the email of my stalker.
That is not right, and terror is induced in a family. Barack Obama
promised
today to stand up to online problems. We cannot do much because they
are in many other countries. To pay tens of thousands of dollars to
travel
to another country to a lawsuit is not something many do. Yet misery
means
nothing to them, but you grewn up in a place where they use terms on
us and
them grounds, in ways higher imperialistic, outdated and neglectful.
You
won't understand a word anyway of what I say. That 0.1 percent of the
UK population is here online. 92 percent of the UK population voted
against
the Iraq war, that number moved toward 100 percent over time,
currently
at 99.9 percent of the UK population. The rest immensed in virulant
siege,
control and racism and totalitarian form taking of other people's ID,
name and identity are found online. They are fascists.

Correct that: Barack Obama was not talking about protecting Americans,
he was probably saying protect Americans from cyber-attacks. That
does not mean from stalkers who do them and take identity and take
control of a person. That means from in general Americans are
protected
from cyber-attacks in a different context.

wrote in message
...
STOP POSTING THIS CRAP TO SCI.SPACE.POLICY!

Why would anybody want to have space policy? Dude, you are over
working.

We'll just let QWest decide whether what you are doing is appropriate or
not; hmmmm?

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Ian Parker wrote:

[Deirdre wrote:]

: Do yourself a flavor and shut up before you truly remove all
: doubt as to your recto-cranial inversion.
:
:This was clearly NOT written by a biochemist.

snip

:Is the poster a woman? I would rather doubt it for this reason. Women,
:and this includes teenage girls, do not on the whole tell dirty jokes.
:

Have you ever known any women, Ian? It doesn't sound like it.

:
:"Recto cranial inversion" was clearly written by a man therefore.
:

What a preposterous assertion!

I'm as fond of polysyllabic humour as the next man, but I'd be the
first to admit that's a trait scarcely indicative of _machismo_.

--
Odysseus

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:Well for a start the Einstein Hoax posters are very much of this type.
:I think there is a real point. Fred is attemting to stifle all
:discussion in sci.space.policy. I think he has been largely successful
:in this. The problem is that his ugly mug emerges in other groups too.
:

Poor Ian and his paranoid delusions. It cannot be that I call him a
loon because he's loony, so there must be some larger, more sinister
goal.

:
:Am I making too much of a fuss about one individual. I do not think
:so. He has started his infestation elsewhere. I believe that all
:unmoderated groups are at potential risk.
:

I can see you, Ian. I'm in your house....

:
:What happenned and what has escalated is that I am a bit of an
:enthusiast about AI. Fred says that AI is totally insane quite
:forgeting that the Pentagon is deeply involved in AI too.
:

No, Ian. You're lying again. I say that YOUR views on AI are insane.
I say that because your views on AI are insane and you don't know
anything at all about the topic.

:
:What in fact triggered this latest round of vituperation is that there
:was a thread intoduced by Martha Adams on the future of human
:spaceflight. I posted saying (and giving references) that any view of
:the future had to take into account what people like Kurtzweil was
:saying. Fred accused me of being insane.
:
:Problem was that a few days later came an announcement that NASA had
:in fact signed up to the "Singularity University" ...
:

That's not a 'problem', Ian, since it never happened. I'd suggest you
go look up what actually happened. Check out the actual facts. Let
me help you. Here is Singularity University's own list of 'Partners'.
Do you see NASA on that list? I don't.

http://singularityu.org/about/partners/

NASA is just the landlord, Ian.

:
:... and that the brass
f NASA were saying that new technology was needed if NASA was to
:achieve its goals.
:

But not THAT new technology and certainly not the 'new technology'
that you keep delusionally bleating about.

:
:One would have thought this would have shut him up but no. Deirdre
:then started up and sallied forth. Saying I was arrogant, how nice to
:be always right etc. etc. Consistently refusing to discuss any real
:issues.
:

Ian, you ARE arrogant, ignorant, and an all around net loon.

:
:Fred and sidekick are NOT just two posters. They are pasrt of a
:concerted disinformation campaign. This campaign includes the Einstein
:Hoax. They are both out on a limb.
:

Paranoid much?

:
:In this latest thread they are BOTH
:guilty of identity theft. They are in short professional disinformers.
:

Ian, you have just accused me of a criminal act. I'm sure they have
libel and slander laws where you live. I suggest that you retract
your preceding statement immediately because I'm not going to be nice
about it like Deirdre was. Failing an immediate and public retraction
on your part of your false charges of criminal acts, I *will* do
something about them.

:
:This is something that threatens ALL unmoderated groups. I sometimes
:feel that the days of the completely unmoderated group may be drawing
:to a close.
:

I have the same feeling, but it's because what used to be newsgroups
for serious discussion have become infested with crossposting loons
like you.

:
:This identity theft is a serious matter. I am going to write to the
:REAL Deirdre telling her of the situation.
:

How'd that work out for you, Ian?

You're right. Your false claims of identity theft ARE a serious
matter. They can have serious consequences FOR YOU. I suggest you
consult an attorney about the possible consequences FOR YOU of your
falsely accusing people of criminal acts.


--
"The odds get even - You blame the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
:
:Happy, now?
:

Are you ready for him to accuse you of hacking the real Deirdre
Sholto-Douglas' email? You can't get a loony like 'Ian Parker' to
retract based on reality. There's only one way to teach him that he
can't go around publicly accusing reputable professionals of criminal
acts.

He's got 48 hours to issue a public retraction of his false accusation
that I have committed the criminal act of identity theft. It is 6:00
AM on Wednesday, 25 February, 2009. He has until Friday morning...

:
:By the way, how you can look at that website and come up
:with "extracting" uranium is beyond me. The point of the
:exercise is to microbially reduce and immobilise soluble U(VI)
:to insoluble U(IV). Bioremediation of radionuclides, Ian...not
:mining.
:

It's not beyond me. It's the sort of loonytoon 'technology' that 'Ian
Parker' is enamoured of. Sentient and self-replicating AI machines,
sentient and self aware nanobots, using bacteria to 'build' things,
mine things, etc.

:
:---------------------------------
:
:
:
:Ian,*
:
:I thank you for your concern wrt to identity theft...I assure
:you my identity has not been stolen. *To that*end, I will be*
:happy to repost this email..both your original missive and*
:my reply...on the thread*in question from*my personal email*
:account in order to allay your concerns.
:
:While I appreciate your interest in me, I would like to*state*
:that I draw a line between my*USENET postings*and my*
rofessional life...I would be grateful if, in future,*you make*
:an effort not to cross it again. *
:
:Thank you.
:
eirdre Sholto-Douglas
:Molecular Environmental Science Group
:Biosciences Division
:Argonne National Laboratory
:
:
:
:On Feb 24, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Ian Parker wrote:
:I am writing to you about a possible case of identity theft.
:
:http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...536dc510ffc4c0
:
:I would first of all like to ask you whether you are the Deirdre
:Sholto Douglas who is posing in this thread. I do not believe for
ne moment that you are. I think you ought to know though that
:your name is being used in this way. What action you take is,
f course, up to you. I think though your good name should be
:important to you.
:
:I feel too I should tell you where I am coming from. I am a retired
:mathematician with a strong interest in Artificial Intelligence. I
:have always felt that the future of the space program lies in
:unmanned exploration and in improving the quality of AI. This
:was howled down by various people in sci.space.policy. As well
:as attacking my theories they made a lot of personal remarks
:about me.
:
:Recently NASA has in fact endorsed this position. NASA (along
:with Google) has teamed up with Kurtzwel in the shape of the
:"Singularity University". This in fact offers a whole range of
:technologies, focussed on AI, but also including such things as
:nanotech.
:
:I have looked at your website. One thing hit me in the eye. Uranium
:and its biological extraction. I would like to ask you another question
:-
:"What about Platinum?" Would it be possible, in your view, to extract
:Platinum biologically? This is one of the things which I think the new
:NASA brass are after. When the dinosaurs became extinct a layer
f Iridium was deposited and asteroids are rich (in comparison with
:the Earth's crust) in platinoids.
:
:This by the way is one of the reasons why it can't be you. You I am
:sure would have mentioned the work on Uranium.
:*
:* - Ian Parker

Odysseus wrote:

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Ian Parker wrote:

:"Recto cranial inversion" was clearly written by a man therefore.
:

What a preposterous assertion!

I'm as fond of polysyllabic humour as the next man, but I'd be the
first to admit that's a trait scarcely indicative of _machismo_.

It's not? Are you sure?

Crap.

Does this mean I have to return the Ferrari? ;-)

Deirdre

On Feb 24, 10:31*pm, "Alan Erskine" wrote:
wrote in message

...

STOP POSTING THIS CRAP TO SCI.SPACE.POLICY!

Why would anybody want to have space policy? Dude, you are over
working.

We'll just let QWest decide whether what you are doing is appropriate or
not; hmmmm?

Deranged.