Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
(https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
"Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.

Is this worth doing?
Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?
Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?
Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?
Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?

In any case, full credit will be given to Baez for the original.

Do you have suggestions for added entries, plus point scores for each?

Example additions, exact phrasing and points not yet determined:

People who agree with an argument promoted by an expert are "worshiping"
him, are brainwashed, indoctrinated, or are parrots.

Silence is consent: "I notice that there are no comments on my
manifesto. That means that you all agree with it!"

"Physics is a religion/cult!"

References to things like "Old Biology" (textbook standard biology) and
"New Biology" (the crank's version of biology including bizarre changes,
the crank believes his version is or will be accepted)

Expand Baez's Item #21: "I won a Nobel Prize for my discovery" when they
didn't.
Less delusional: "I should have won a Nobel Prize for my discovery."
Sour grapes: "The Nobel Prize is worthless"/"the committee awarding it
is corrupt", etc. because they didn't win a Nobel.
"I was offered the Nobel Prize but I turned it down because it's worthless."

I want to keep this generic, otherwise it may become relativity/Einstein
specific or creationism specific. Also certain behavior unique to only
one crank probably shouldn't be included.

I set followups to sci.physics.

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
> (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
> quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
> have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
> For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
> "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
>
> Is this worth doing?
> Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?
> Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?
> Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?
> Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?
>
> In any case, full credit will be given to Baez for the original.
>
>
> Do you have suggestions for added entries, plus point scores for each?
>
> Example additions, exact phrasing and points not yet determined:
>
> People who agree with an argument promoted by an expert are "worshiping"
> him, are brainwashed, indoctrinated, or are parrots.
>
> Silence is consent: "I notice that there are no comments on my
> manifesto. That means that you all agree with it!"
>
> "Physics is a religion/cult!"
>
> References to things like "Old Biology" (textbook standard biology) and
> "New Biology" (the crank's version of biology including bizarre changes,
> the crank believes his version is or will be accepted)
>
> Expand Baez's Item #21: "I won a Nobel Prize for my discovery" when they
> didn't.
> Less delusional: "I should have won a Nobel Prize for my discovery."
> Sour grapes: "The Nobel Prize is worthless"/"the committee awarding it
> is corrupt", etc. because they didn't win a Nobel.
> "I was offered the Nobel Prize but I turned it down because it's worthless."
>
>
> I want to keep this generic, otherwise it may become relativity/Einstein
> specific or creationism specific. Also certain behavior unique to only
> one crank probably shouldn't be included.
>
> I set followups to sci.physics.

Well, crankery is clearly a form of insanity. There is no real way of "grading" crankery, crankery is like pornography, one recognizes it when one sees it. So, any way you want to add to the crank index is fine. One special mention for the likes of Dick Hertz, he deserves extra points for the many ways he tries to pervert the underlying mathematics. This is what makes him the most entertaining crank of the forum, by far. So, I would add points for the "keep it up, dumbestfuck!" Dick Hertz. The other interesting crank is Eric Bard, who takes it to thhe next level : he writes (unpublished and unpublishable) "papers", This makes him even more interesting than Dick, so he deserves extra points as well.

On 12/8/2022 2:13 PM, whodat wrote:
> On 12/8/2022 1:46 PM, Volney wrote:
>> Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
>> (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
>> quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
>> have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not
>> listed. For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for
>> example "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult
>> scientists.
>>
>> Is this worth doing?
>
> Probably.
>
>> Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?
>
> Yes, expand unless you can come up with a set of more generic sorts of
> claims that cover all the territory. While it is clear that Baez was
> brilliant I think his list was a product of frustration and suffered for
> it. One should not think the Baez work was not enjoyable in context. On
> the other hand one should realize that most (if not all) the cranks in
> these newsgroups suffer from significant mental illness. So the end
> product should be about the claims, not the individuals.
>
>> Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?
>> Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?
>> Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?
>
> Following Baez in this effort I think you should make it your own work,
> whatever that turns out to be, while retaining the enjoyment aspects
> of the original as much as possible.
>
>
>> In any case, full credit will be given to Baez for the original.
>>
>>
>> Do you have suggestions for added entries, plus point scores for each?
>>
>> Example additions, exact phrasing and points not yet determined:
>>
>> People who agree with an argument promoted by an expert are
>> "worshiping" him, are brainwashed, indoctrinated, or are parrots.
>
> You might point out that some canned replies aren't worth honorable
> mention.
>
>
>> Silence is consent: "I notice that there are no comments on my
>> manifesto. That means that you all agree with it!"
>>
>> "Physics is a religion/cult!"
>>
>> References to things like "Old Biology" (textbook standard biology)
>> and "New Biology" (the crank's version of biology including bizarre
>> changes, the crank believes his version is or will be accepted)
>>
>> Expand Baez's Item #21: "I won a Nobel Prize for my discovery" when
>> they didn't.
>> Less delusional: "I should have won a Nobel Prize for my discovery."
>> Sour grapes: "The Nobel Prize is worthless"/"the committee awarding it
>> is corrupt", etc. because they didn't win a Nobel.
>> "I was offered the Nobel Prize but I turned it down because it's
>> worthless."
>>
>>
>> I want to keep this generic, otherwise it may become
>> relativity/Einstein specific or creationism specific. Also certain
>> behavior unique to only one crank probably shouldn't be included.
>
>
>
> I think it pays to be discipline (but not subdiscipline) specific.
>
>
>> I set followups to sci.physics.
>
> I reset followups to both physics and relativity as I think both groups
> benefit from this effort. Thanks.
>
> Please be sure to work in some sort of generic while clearly
> narcissistic claims. You could probably cover a lot of ground
> that way without enlarging the text. After all, we don't want
> a Britannica sized work for this task.
>

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
> (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
> quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
> have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
> For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
> "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
>
> Is this worth doing?
> Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?
> Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?
> Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?
> Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?
>
> In any case, full credit will be given to Baez for the original.
>
>
> Do you have suggestions for added entries, plus point scores for each?
>
> Example additions, exact phrasing and points not yet determined:
>
> People who agree with an argument promoted by an expert are "worshiping"
> him, are brainwashed, indoctrinated, or are parrots.
>
> Silence is consent: "I notice that there are no comments on my
> manifesto. That means that you all agree with it!"
>
> "Physics is a religion/cult!"
>
> References to things like "Old Biology" (textbook standard biology) and
> "New Biology" (the crank's version of biology including bizarre changes,
> the crank believes his version is or will be accepted)
>
> Expand Baez's Item #21: "I won a Nobel Prize for my discovery" when they
> didn't.
> Less delusional: "I should have won a Nobel Prize for my discovery."
> Sour grapes: "The Nobel Prize is worthless"/"the committee awarding it
> is corrupt", etc. because they didn't win a Nobel.
> "I was offered the Nobel Prize but I turned it down because it's worthless."
>
>
> I want to keep this generic, otherwise it may become relativity/Einstein
> specific or creationism specific. Also certain behavior unique to only
> one crank probably shouldn't be included.
>
> I set followups to sci.physics.

....also, extra points for "idee fixe" :

1. zionist conspiracy
2. kzar domination
3. Einstein cult
4. relativism (sic!)
5. jewish science

You get the idea...

On 2022-12-08 20:16:28 +0000, Dono. said:

> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
>> (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
>> quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
>> have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
>> For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
>> "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
>>
>> Is this worth doing?
>> Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?
>> Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?
>> Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?
>> Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?
>>
>> In any case, full credit will be given to Baez for the original.
>>
>>
>> Do you have suggestions for added entries, plus point scores for each?
>>
>> Example additions, exact phrasing and points not yet determined:
>>
>> People who agree with an argument promoted by an expert are "worshiping"
>> him, are brainwashed, indoctrinated, or are parrots.
>>
>> Silence is consent: "I notice that there are no comments on my
>> manifesto. That means that you all agree with it!"
>>
>> "Physics is a religion/cult!"
>>
>> References to things like "Old Biology" (textbook standard biology) and
>> "New Biology" (the crank's version of biology including bizarre changes,
>> the crank believes his version is or will be accepted)
>>
>> Expand Baez's Item #21: "I won a Nobel Prize for my discovery" when they
>> didn't.
>> Less delusional: "I should have won a Nobel Prize for my discovery."
>> Sour grapes: "The Nobel Prize is worthless"/"the committee awarding it
>> is corrupt", etc. because they didn't win a Nobel.
>> "I was offered the Nobel Prize but I turned it down because it's worthless."
>>
>>
>> I want to keep this generic, otherwise it may become relativity/Einstein
>> specific or creationism specific. Also certain behavior unique to only
>> one crank probably shouldn't be included.
>>
>> I set followups to sci.physics.
>
>
> ...also, extra points for "idee fixe" :
>
> 1. zionist conspiracy
> 2. kzar domination
> 3. Einstein cult
> 4. relativism (sic!)
> 5. jewish science
>
> You get the idea...

How about repeating the same sentence over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, à
la Wozniak?
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Volney wrote:

> Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
> (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
> quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
> have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
> For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
> "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.

nonsense. You have been eating human meat for decades now, in capitalism,
thinking it was pig meat. Therefore the capitalism killed communism by
intent feeding you with deceased people's meat.

do you see any pig around here, no. Therefore you are eating human flesh.
Fucks know how many people you ate already. Proofs.

https://humanmeatproject.com/human-meat-as-food-source/

Human Meat Donation Mission and Vision

In order to save the planet from the impact of our modern civilization and
lifestyle, we have to make a change in our ideas about consumption and our
dietary choices.

We face climate change due to waste, pollution, deforestation and
overpopulation problems.

By donating your body for human consumption, you are taking direct action
to help others and lessen the damage of the industrial age.

By consuming human meat, we create a change in both our life and the
world. By improving the standard quality of life in every country and
nation, we can give everyone in the world a good life.

Human Meat Nutrition Facts

One body can feed up to 40 people*
*An average adult male 65kg, only meat

Human meat often understated for its nutritions, human meat protein and
fat density could have the same or better than other convenient meat
product like beef, chicken and pork.

As omnivore, *human_meat_taste* and texture is similar to *_pork_*, not to
mention the quality could be more substantial(depending on Quality of Life
ratings).

One body contains every essential amino, minerals and vitamins needed for
daily intake.
Not only one body could feed up to 40 people, it also the most attainable
resource for meat and fat consumption.

Human meat is cruelty and slaughter free

Quality Control

How we Select our Donors

We make sure our donors are healthy, and without any contagious diseases,
health issues, or medications or substances which might be absorbed by
people who consume their meat.

Health Risk

Donors who have medical conditions such as AIDS/HIV, Creutzfeldt-Jakob
disease (CJD), hepatitis (HAV/HBV/HCV/HDV/HEV), cancer, tuberculosis, or
rabies will be rejected in order to prevent risk to the consumer.

There are also other medical condition that might prevent donors from
being accepted, such as diabetes, hormone treatments or mental disorders.

Rejected Donation

In case of rejected donation:

If a donor has any medical condition that can be transferred human to
human, they cannot be a donor.

If a donor has an active cancer, they cannot donate up until the time the
cancer has gone into remission or been removed and will have to wait a
minimum of one year after the last treatment or procedure. If a donor has
a partial remission, they will have to wait a minimum of one year after
the procedure and will go through a medical check up to ensure no
medications remain in the body. If a donor has gone through full remission
after one year, they can be a human meat donor.

Quality of Life

Quality of Life is a rating system of human meat quality.

Every donor that has gone through our quality control procedure and
assessment will be rated based on the quality of their life (health and
wellness).

About Us

Welcome to the Human Meat Project, we are the human meat donation program.
By donating bodies for human consumption, we are taking action to solve
overpopulation, which leads to climate change and the greenhouse effect
caused by the mass farming of livestock animals in order to feed the
world.

At Human Meat Project, we value every body and every life.

We emphasize the source and origins of our human meat to deliver the
diversity of our world and reveal the worrying differences of quality of
life across the globe.

Our organization welcomes every nation to give back to the rest of the
world. Hand in hand, we can help each other improve living conditions and
the environment for everyone through this global movement.

We are calling you, humans, to wake up and take action now. We are not
living individually and alone. We need each others to survive. Together we
can create a world worth living for. Together we can build a world of
humanity and solidarity. Every life is cardinal.

HUMAN MEAT PROJECT
PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE

For a Better Tomorrow

Volney wrote:

> Is this worth doing?
> Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?
> Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?
> Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?
> Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?

https://humanmeatproject.com/end-date-and-harvest-time/harvest-time/

Harvest Time

Our donors will be taken care of by our specialized team to make sure they
are treated with full respect and care. Donors will be prepared
emotionally and physically to enter the Harvest Room. Donors will be given
time to spend their last moment as a person before they become Human Meat.

The donor will then be assisted in a painless and peaceful method of
passing away, after which we will immediately begin the harvesting
procedure and harvest the donor body and/or organs.

We assist donors in a peaceful and respectful way to terminate their life
and harvest their bodies to become a consumable resource for those in
need. When a donor chooses partial donation with an End Date Service, the
body will be cleaned and prepared before being returned to their next of
kin based on any previous arrangements.

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 5:16:30 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> ...also, extra points for "idee fixe" :
>
> 1. zionist conspiracy
> 2. kzar domination
> 3. Einstein cult
> 4. relativism (sic!)
> 5. jewish science
>
> You get the idea...

NO, IMBECILE. IT'S MUCH EASIER:

1) Corporation's science (you are not allowed to know or participate or communicate in any way, if you are IN).

2) The rest, in academy, publishing houses, MSM, Hollywood (THIS IS THE ONLY THAT YOU KNOW, Dono. You ARE OUT OF 1).

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 2:11:45 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> 1) Corporation's science (you are not allowed to know or participate or communicate in any way, if you are IN).
>
> 2) The rest, in academy, publishing houses, MSM, Hollywood

Thank you, Dick

For adding your other idees fixe

Baez and others quit these newsgroups as worthless. That's probably
the leadership I should acknowledge and be following. Can't make a silk
purse out of this. In mathematics once you hit zero there are negative
numbers. But in the reality of "values" I contend once you hit zero
there is nothing else, you've literally hit the end of value. I have to
wonder why I'm still here. Uncle Al quit when death was imminent. I
don't think I want to wait that long.

On 12/8/2022 2:58 PM, Stephan Russo wrote:
> Volney wrote:
>
>> Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
>> (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
>> quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
>> have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
>> For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
>> "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
>
> nonsense. You have been eating human meat for decades now, in capitalism,
> thinking it was pig meat. Therefore the capitalism killed communism by
> intent feeding you with deceased people's meat.
>
> do you see any pig around here, no. Therefore you are eating human flesh.
> Fucks know how many people you ate already. Proofs.
>
> https://humanmeatproject.com/human-meat-as-food-source/
>
> Human Meat Donation Mission and Vision
>
> In order to save the planet from the impact of our modern civilization and
> lifestyle, we have to make a change in our ideas about consumption and our
> dietary choices.
>
> We face climate change due to waste, pollution, deforestation and
> overpopulation problems.
>
> By donating your body for human consumption, you are taking direct action
> to help others and lessen the damage of the industrial age.
>
> By consuming human meat, we create a change in both our life and the
> world. By improving the standard quality of life in every country and
> nation, we can give everyone in the world a good life.
>
> Human Meat Nutrition Facts
>
> One body can feed up to 40 people*
> *An average adult male 65kg, only meat
>
> Human meat often understated for its nutritions, human meat protein and
> fat density could have the same or better than other convenient meat
> product like beef, chicken and pork.
>
> As omnivore, *human_meat_taste* and texture is similar to *_pork_*, not to
> mention the quality could be more substantial(depending on Quality of Life
> ratings).
>
> One body contains every essential amino, minerals and vitamins needed for
> daily intake.
> Not only one body could feed up to 40 people, it also the most attainable
> resource for meat and fat consumption.
>
> Human meat is cruelty and slaughter free
>
> Quality Control
>
> How we Select our Donors
>
> We make sure our donors are healthy, and without any contagious diseases,
> health issues, or medications or substances which might be absorbed by
> people who consume their meat.
>
> Health Risk
>
> Donors who have medical conditions such as AIDS/HIV, Creutzfeldt-Jakob
> disease (CJD), hepatitis (HAV/HBV/HCV/HDV/HEV), cancer, tuberculosis, or
> rabies will be rejected in order to prevent risk to the consumer.
>
> There are also other medical condition that might prevent donors from
> being accepted, such as diabetes, hormone treatments or mental disorders.
>
> Rejected Donation
>
> In case of rejected donation:
>
> If a donor has any medical condition that can be transferred human to
> human, they cannot be a donor.
>
> If a donor has an active cancer, they cannot donate up until the time the
> cancer has gone into remission or been removed and will have to wait a
> minimum of one year after the last treatment or procedure. If a donor has
> a partial remission, they will have to wait a minimum of one year after
> the procedure and will go through a medical check up to ensure no
> medications remain in the body. If a donor has gone through full remission
> after one year, they can be a human meat donor.
>
> Quality of Life
>
> Quality of Life is a rating system of human meat quality.
>
> Every donor that has gone through our quality control procedure and
> assessment will be rated based on the quality of their life (health and
> wellness).
>
> About Us
>
> Welcome to the Human Meat Project, we are the human meat donation program.
> By donating bodies for human consumption, we are taking action to solve
> overpopulation, which leads to climate change and the greenhouse effect
> caused by the mass farming of livestock animals in order to feed the
> world.
>
> At Human Meat Project, we value every body and every life.
>
> We emphasize the source and origins of our human meat to deliver the
> diversity of our world and reveal the worrying differences of quality of
> life across the globe.
>
> Our organization welcomes every nation to give back to the rest of the
> world. Hand in hand, we can help each other improve living conditions and
> the environment for everyone through this global movement.
>
> We are calling you, humans, to wake up and take action now. We are not
> living individually and alone. We need each others to survive. Together we
> can create a world worth living for. Together we can build a world of
> humanity and solidarity. Every life is cardinal.
>
> HUMAN MEAT PROJECT
> PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE
>
> For a Better Tomorrow

On 12/8/2022 5:11 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 5:16:30 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> ...also, extra points for "idee fixe" :
>>
>> 1. zionist conspiracy
>> 2. kzar domination
>> 3. Einstein cult
>> 4. relativism (sic!)
>> 5. jewish science
>>
>> You get the idea...
>
>
> NO, IMBECILE. IT'S MUCH EASIER:
>
> 1) Corporation's science (you are not allowed to know or participate or communicate in any way, if you are IN).
>
> 2) The rest, in academy, publishing houses, MSM, Hollywood (THIS IS THE ONLY THAT YOU KNOW, Dono. You ARE OUT OF 1).
>

You may be honored to know that I will be rereading some of your posts
for excellent additions to the new crank index.

whodat wrote:

> Baez and others quit these newsgroups as worthless. That's probably
> the leadership I should acknowledge and be following. Can't make a silk
> purse out of this. In mathematics once you hit zero there are negative
> numbers. But in the reality of "values" I contend once you hit zero
> there is nothing else, you've literally hit the end of value. I have to
> wonder why I'm still here. Uncle Al quit when death was imminent. I
> don't think I want to wait that long.

sad to hear about. Are you gay?

On 12/9/2022 8:35 AM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
> whodat wrote:
>
>> Baez and others quit these newsgroups as worthless. That's probably
>> the leadership I should acknowledge and be following. Can't make a silk
>> purse out of this. In mathematics once you hit zero there are negative
>> numbers. But in the reality of "values" I contend once you hit zero
>> there is nothing else, you've literally hit the end of value. I have to
>> wonder why I'm still here. Uncle Al quit when death was imminent. I
>> don't think I want to wait that long.
>
> sad to hear about. Are you gay?

No, but I have to wonder why you would ask, having a string of bad luck?

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 11:56:32 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 12/8/2022 5:11 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 5:16:30 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> ...also, extra points for "idee fixe" :
> >>
> >> 1. zionist conspiracy
> >> 2. kzar domination
> >> 3. Einstein cult
> >> 4. relativism (sic!)
> >> 5. jewish science
> >>
> >> You get the idea...
> >
> >
> > NO, IMBECILE. IT'S MUCH EASIER:
> >
> > 1) Corporation's science (you are not allowed to know or participate or communicate in any way, if you are IN).
> >
> > 2) The rest, in academy, publishing houses, MSM, Hollywood (THIS IS THE ONLY THAT YOU KNOW, Dono. You ARE OUT OF 1).
> >
> You may be honored to know that I will be rereading some of your posts
> for excellent additions to the new crank index.

Must give Dick extra points for insane stalking. And for the ineptitude of his stalking, he's as bad at stalking as he's bad at science.

On Friday, 9 December 2022 at 08:56:32 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 12/8/2022 5:11 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 5:16:30 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> ...also, extra points for "idee fixe" :
> >>
> >> 1. zionist conspiracy
> >> 2. kzar domination
> >> 3. Einstein cult
> >> 4. relativism (sic!)
> >> 5. jewish science
> >>
> >> You get the idea...
> >
> >
> > NO, IMBECILE. IT'S MUCH EASIER:
> >
> > 1) Corporation's science (you are not allowed to know or participate or communicate in any way, if you are IN).
> >
> > 2) The rest, in academy, publishing houses, MSM, Hollywood (THIS IS THE ONLY THAT YOU KNOW, Dono. You ARE OUT OF 1).
> >
> You may be honored to know that I will be rereading some of your posts
> for excellent additions to the new crank index.

And - do you still believe that your ISO idiocy
is a consequence of Newtonian physics, stupid
Mike?

Volney wrote:

> On 12/8/2022 5:11 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> NO, IMBECILE. IT'S MUCH EASIER:
>> 1) Corporation's science (you are not allowed to know or participate or
>> communicate in any way, if you are IN).
>> 2) The rest, in academy, publishing houses, MSM, Hollywood (THIS IS THE
>> ONLY THAT YOU KNOW, Dono. You ARE OUT OF 1).
>
> You may be honored to know that I will be rereading some of your posts
> for excellent additions to the new crank index.

you are so cool, nice guy. Here's a little about the tax_collectors and the money changers, making money, giving them to fools.
(english subtitles)

"You can't feed anyone with paper – you need food" - Putin on fake currencies
https://%62%72%69%67%68%74%65%6f%6e.com/35baa4ae-825b-440b-8231-33a718e9d162

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
> (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
> quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
> have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
> For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
> "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
>
> Is this worth doing?
> Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?
> Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?
> Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?
> Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?
>
> In any case, full credit will be given to Baez for the original.
>
>
> Do you have suggestions for added entries, plus point scores for each?
>
> Example additions, exact phrasing and points not yet determined:
>
> People who agree with an argument promoted by an expert are "worshiping"
> him, are brainwashed, indoctrinated, or are parrots.
>
> Silence is consent: "I notice that there are no comments on my
> manifesto. That means that you all agree with it!"
>
> "Physics is a religion/cult!"
>
> References to things like "Old Biology" (textbook standard biology) and
> "New Biology" (the crank's version of biology including bizarre changes,
> the crank believes his version is or will be accepted)
>
> Expand Baez's Item #21: "I won a Nobel Prize for my discovery" when they
> didn't.
> Less delusional: "I should have won a Nobel Prize for my discovery."
> Sour grapes: "The Nobel Prize is worthless"/"the committee awarding it
> is corrupt", etc. because they didn't win a Nobel.
> "I was offered the Nobel Prize but I turned it down because it's worthless."
>
>
> I want to keep this generic, otherwise it may become relativity/Einstein
> specific or creationism specific. Also certain behavior unique to only
> one crank probably shouldn't be included.
>
> I set followups to sci.physics.
I would like to propose that 150 points be awarded to all those who respond with wide-eyed, slack-jawed silence to my eponymous dilemma:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/580388/does-keplers-3rd-law-of-planetary-motion-violate-the-first-postulate

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 1:36:39 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:

> I would like to propose that 150 points be awarded to me

You got it, Pattycakes

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 1:39:08 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 1:36:39 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>
> > I would like to propose that 150 points be awarded to me
>
> You got it, Pattycakes
At least ten of you chumps have looked over my proposal and eponymous dilemma. Yet only dumbo Dono responds???? Move over kryptonite. Make room for Dolomite. Dolomite is guaran-damn-teed to sap the fighting strength of any relativists.

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 5:47:07 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 1:39:08 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 1:36:39 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to propose that 150 points be awarded to me
> >
> > You got it, Pattycakes
> Make room for Dolomite.
Dolomite as in rocks for brains , Pattycakes

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 5:47:07 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:

> At least ten of you chumps have looked over my proposal and eponymous dilemma. Yet only dumbo Dono responds???? Move over kryptonite. Make room for Dolomite. Dolomite is guaran-damn-teed to sap the fighting strength of any relativists.

Do·lo·mite
/ˈdōləˌmīt/
noun

1.
a translucent mineral consisting of a carbonate of calcium and magnesium.
▪
a sedimentary rock formed chiefly of dolomite.

In other words... a guy with rocks in his head...

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 7:17:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 5:47:07 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > At least ten of you chumps have looked over my proposal and eponymous dilemma. Yet only dumbo Dono responds???? Move over kryptonite. Make room for Dolomite. Dolomite is guaran-damn-teed to sap the fighting strength of any relativists.
> Do·lo·mite
> /ˈdōləˌmīt/
> noun
>
> 1.
> a translucent mineral consisting of a carbonate of calcium and magnesium.
> ▪
> a sedimentary rock formed chiefly of dolomite.
>
> In other words... a guy with rocks in his head...
Yep, just told him that :-)

Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[sorry, I don't post in sci.physics, except perhaps by accident]

> Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
> (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
> quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
> have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
> For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
> "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
>
> Is this worth doing?

No. (for updating)

> Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?

Neither.

> Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?

No.

> Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?

Yes. You should leave the Baez original for the monument that it is.

And yes, if you feel like it, do start an entirely new crackpot index,
based on recent observations.

> Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?

Individual postings, like Baez did.
However, for your consideration:
The sister group, t.o.,
(for the care and feeding of the American creationist)
has a periodic "By their works" posting.

It summarises periodically who the currently active IDiots are,
with characteristic excerpts from their postings.

Jan

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 4:09:41 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> [sorry, I don't post in sci.physics, except perhaps by accident]
> > Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
> > (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
> > quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
> > have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
> > For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
> > "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
> >
> > Is this worth doing?
> No. (for updating)
> > Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?
> Neither.
> > Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?
> No.
> > Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?
> Yes. You should leave the Baez original for the monument that it is.
>
> And yes, if you feel like it, do start an entirely new crackpot index,
> based on recent observations.
> > Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?
> Individual postings, like Baez did.
> However, for your consideration:
> The sister group, t.o.,
> (for the care and feeding of the American creationist)
> has a periodic "By their works" posting.
>
> It summarises periodically who the currently active IDiots are,
> with characteristic excerpts from their postings.
>
> Jan
Not to cyber stalk you Jan, but your continuing air of continental erudition only serves to further beclown you in lieu of a coherent response to my eponymous dilemma--it is in fact an insurmountable objection to special relativity, yes?

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 9:34:40 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:

> to cyber stalk you Jan,

RocksForBrains, Pattycakes

You stepped in into this one