[QUOTE=zut]
Are we individually pitting posters every time someone gives a wrong answer in GQ?
Because the sun is eventually going to collapse into a red dwarf, leaving the Earth cold and lifeless. You might want to factor that time limit into your planning.
[/QUOTE]
When the poster in question has expressed a desire to mutilate people who post incorrect info in GQ it’s just karma.
Enjoy,
Steven
[QUOTE=Mtgman]
When the poster in question has expressed a desire to mutilate people who post incorrect info in GQ it’s just karma.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, now that is a valid criticism.
I also remember Bricker, on more than one occasion, ranting about how people who are just guessing about legal issues should keep the fuck out of GQ rather than posting wild guesses. Maybe he will now appreciate that those folks sometimes post with good intentions, or in the genuine belief that their responses are correct, and cut them some slack.
[QUOTE=Mtgman]
When the poster in question has expressed a desire to mutilate people who post incorrect info in GQ it’s just karma.
[/QUOTE]
Heh. I guess that would sort of put Bricker in a special class, wouldn’t it? Although, to be fair, there is a difference between people who post an occasional poorly-qualified (or even flat-out wrong) statement and serial offenders.
[QUOTE=Mtgman]
When the poster in question has expressed a desire to mutilate people who post incorrect info in GQ it’s just karma.
Enjoy,
Steven
[/QUOTE]
Enjoyed. Thanks.
[QUOTE=straight man]
How about it?
[/QUOTE]
C’mon, Cartooniverse is one of the biggest hypocrites on the board. Freaking out because Bricker wouldn’t apologize in a day and a half, but a year and half later Colin Farell is still awaiting his apology from Cartooniverse.
“ancient photons, bouncing about without a home” is NOT a good band name.
Although if such a band is formed, odds are that it will contain Paul McCartney.
[QUOTE=mhendo]
Well, as others have pointed out, being online need not mean actively browsing the site. I can think of literally hundreds of occasions where i’ve left my browser open while browsing other sites or doing other tasks, and have then closed my browser or and/or turned off my computer. I also sometimes browse new threads on the Dope without checking my email to see whether there have been new responses to my old threads.
Given that there are so many plausible situations whereby a person might be officially online yet unaware of a particular post, i think it’s eminently reasonable to gauge their Board participation based on the time of their most recent actual post.
You say that it’s unreasonable for me to “assume a frequent poster like [Bricker] wouldn’t have revisited the thread.” Personally, i think it’s rather more unreasonable to assume that a frequent poster like Bricker would choose to ignore an argument just because it was contrary to his own position.
I’m not especially interested in playing advocate for Bricker; i’ve criticized him plenty myself, and disagree with him on many issues. But he has often shown willingness to admit when he was in error, and this whole thread was, in my opinion, a dramatic over-reaction to a minor issue. So, you don’t know how it works, but you’re willing to argue that it’s a more valid indicator of Bricker’s behavior than looking at the time of his most recent post?
[/QUOTE]
Unless the vBulletin software has some background javascript in its pages that constantly updates the server (unlikely), then all ‘online’ means is that the session cookie which was created/updated when the last page request took place has not expired yet. It doesn’t matter if you leave your browser open or not. It matters to you at home, because when you close your browser you lose your session cookie, so to you it looks like you’ve gone from online to offline. But the SDMB server isn’t notified by your PC when you close your browser window.
So whether the SDMB shows a person to be online or not does not tell you at all whether he or she is still at the computer. It just means, “I established a session with the user, and that session hasn’t expired yet.”
[QUOTE=Mtgman]
When the poster in question has expressed a desire to mutilate people who post incorrect info in GQ it’s just karma.
[/QUOTE]
Good catch.
[QUOTE=zut]
Heh. I guess that would sort of put Bricker in a special class, wouldn’t it? Although, to be fair, there is a difference between people who post an occasional poorly-qualified (or even flat-out wrong) statement and serial offenders.
[/QUOTE]
True. However, it should be noted that Bricker’s original answer in that thread was far from being unequivocally wrong. It depends on whether you consider a photon to be “produced” when the energy it contains was created in a nuclear reaction (and then has bounced around being re-absorbed and re-emitted many times), or whether it is “produced” when it is re-emitted. In the latter case, Bricker was correct. The question is debatable, and in fact is still being debated in the original thread.
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
“ancient photons, bouncing about without a home” is NOT a good band name.
Although if such a band is formed, odds are that it will contain Paul McCartney.
[/QUOTE]
Ancient Photons is a pretty good band name, though.
Bouncing about without a home could be the album.
[QUOTE=mhendo]
Ah, now that is a valid criticism.
I also remember Bricker, on more than one occasion, ranting about how people who are just guessing about legal issues should keep the fuck out of GQ rather than posting wild guesses. Maybe he will now appreciate that those folks sometimes post with good intentions, or in the genuine belief that their responses are correct, and cut them some slack.
[/QUOTE]
Nope.
What I will do is acknowledge, again, that I did the same thing. It doesn’t make me appreciate confidently wrong answers posted by others; it makes me even sorrier that I did the same damn wrong stupid thing.
[QUOTE=Colibri]
True. However, it should be noted that Bricker’s original answer in that thread was far from being unequivocally wrong. It depends on whether you consider a photon to be “produced” when the energy it contains was created in a nuclear reaction (and then has bounced around being re-absorbed and re-emitted many times), or whether it is “produced” when it is re-emitted. In the latter case, Bricker was correct. The question is debatable, and in fact is still being debated in the original thread.
[/QUOTE]
If it happens that I was right, that will be cool.
But not really, because it will be a case of the blind squirrel who found an acorn every once in a while. In other words, I’ll have been right by chance, not because I knew the subject thoroughly enough to post in GQ about it.
But now that others in that thread have made the same claim I did, I wonder if Cartooniverse will unleash similar tirades against them?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
But now that others in that thread have made the same claim I did, I wonder if Cartooniverse will unleash similar tirades against them?
[/QUOTE]
I suspect that his objections to your post were not based on a deep knowledge of particle physics on his part. 
If the Sun stopped producing photons, would the radiation pressure then drop to zero and the Sun collapse? It’s not massive enough to collapse to a black hole, but presuming that whatever stopped the fusion process would also stop the expansion to red giant status…
My understanding is that the Sun produces photons at its core thru fusion. Said photons are then absorbed and re-radiated until they reach the outside, and then radiate out. If the theoretical process stopped fusion, then the collapse would occur but then the subsequent fusion of the hydrogen in the outer layers of the Sun would not occur, and no explosion would happen. So it would go straight from G to black or brown dwarf or something.
Wanders off muttering “Oh Be A Fine Girl Kiss Me Right Now Smack!”…
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Nope.
What I will do is acknowledge, again, that I did the same thing. It doesn’t make me appreciate confidently wrong answers posted by others; it makes me even sorrier that I did the same damn wrong stupid thing.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say you had to appreciate wrong answers; i just suggested that you might appreciate that, in giving wrong answers, people sometime demonstrate genuine deficiencies in knowledge or errors of fact that they are unaware of until someone else points them out. You might, in short, simply recognize that people are human and fuck up sometimes, and that they don’t do it specifically to annoy you.
[QUOTE=straight man]
You know, I was thinking just now that with Bricker having apologized in the thread in question, this quote should come into effect:
How about it?
[/QUOTE]
My first visit back into this thread since yesterday.
I will email the Moderators of the Pit right now to request that this thread be locked.
Cartooniverse
[QUOTE=Colibri]
I suspect that his objections to your post were not based on a deep knowledge of particle physics on his part.
[/QUOTE]
–cackle-- Not hardly.
Let it not be said that the right to tell someone they are A Class Act was lost at the turn of the Millenium.
[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
My first visit back into this thread since yesterday.
I will email the Moderators of the Pit right now to request that this thread be locked.
Cartooniverse
[/QUOTE]
apology accepted
Sent mail to Giraffe and fluiddruid, both of whom are listed as Moderators in The Pit. Sent it at about 5:31pm, EST.
No idea when it will be locked, but I did as I said I would do.
[QUOTE=Sapo]
apology accepted
[/QUOTE]
None offered.
