Squeel Pig Squeel! ALL CAPS and more posting...
UC Berkeley
Would you please address and restrict the crazy pro-nuke character?
His postings are distracting, misleading,misinfomred, and insulting. Here is a sample, I will copy and paste it here.
What I love to see is the anti-nukes squealing like stuck pigs when their self-serving LIES and fear mongering are exposed.
SQUEAL PIG SQUEAL
This has to be the stupidest
This has to be the stupidest thread on the internet!
Was the information he complained about wrong or not?
Seems to me the question comes down to whether the information he was complaining about was or was not wrong, in error, a lie.
If he showed you up for being a liar; then I don't think you have anything to complain about. It's your own fault for telling lies and not checking out your information. Or are you hoping that inaccurate anti-nuclear propaganda goes unchallenged?
Was the information....my responce to you.
Neither lies, nor anti-nuclear proaganda, are being posted by me. This answers your question.
Truth, and linked in studies are what is being attached, by me. And questions.
I think you (Was the information he complaoined about wrong or not) are still missing the point of my complaint.
"Squeel pig SQUEEL" is not informative, and is rather distracting and grotesque. Therefore this is my point.
Allow me to explain. I could tell you step by step how to make "Coq au Vin" a well known french recipe. Suppose this is a blog for cooking french food. Certrainly I would not call everyone a squeeling pig, and shout insults to everyone who asked questions or doubted my recipe and steps. Nor would I call everyone a God dammed Nazi as I explained my recipe, nor would I include insulting vulgar insults as I explained and cited how to create my recipe. The Nazi slander is another example used by the Squeel Pig SQUEEL poster.
In other words the UC Berkeley blog is for debate, and questions. Not for bad mouthing and shouting political agenda propaganda for pro-nulcear industry. I think the scientists, and most of the readers in this forum might agree with me on that.
Sounds like you are just ticked off about losing the debate
It sounds like you are just ticked off about losing the debate; about being shown up.
There's plenty of anti-nuclear propaganda being posted on this forum in response to the events at Fukushima. We've had posters attempt to tell us that the explosion at Unit 3 was a full-up nuclear explosion. ( It wasn't. ). We've had posters attempt to tell us that the only reason the Government supported nuclear power was so that it could get material for nuclear weapons. ( Wrong too. )
We've had posters attempt to tell us that the radiation readings that they get from their Geiger counters of samples of rain water shows the effects of Fukushima. ( Mark of BRAWM has repeatedly had to put this one to bed ).
We've had a poster attempt to tell us that heavy water is radioactive because it contains tritium ( Heavy water is not radioactive since it contains non-radioactive deuterium and not tritium ).
It sounds like you think that any anti-nuclear propaganda is just "legitimate questions" and that anything that is pro-nuclear has to be industry-sponsored propaganda.
There's nothing stopping debate here. If someone doesn't like what is being said either pro- or anti- then they can rebut it. The problem for the anti-nukes is that they haven't been able to rebut anything. When the pro-nuke side corrects the anti-nukes by informing them that heavy water made from deuterium is not radioactive; then there's really nothing for the anti-nukes to rebut. They got caught in a lie, and they complain about being forced to own up to it.
Call it abuse
What it is about is persistent abuses of forum etiquette. Name calling, personal attacks, language on the verge of obscene, posting the exact same content multiple times, uncivil disrespect of differing views, the repeated use of outdated references and problems staying on topic.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/5676
Posters that abide by these simple rules earn credence.
This is a scientific forum
When someone corrects a poster who says heavy water is radioactive by informing them that heavy water containing deuterium is stable; that's not intolerance for differing opinions.
In science, we have an absoluter arbiter, Mother Nature.
If someone says heavy water is radioactive, that's not just an opinion that should be respected. The person who says that heavy water is radioactive is just plain wrong.
I think the non-scientists are having trouble with that concept. They prefer "essay questions" to questions with objective answers.
Objective Answers
Thanks for the scientific information, on spot, respectfully correcting bad science with objective answers is always welcomed.
By definition objective answers are: "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts" the statement "What I love to see is the anti-nukes squealing like stuck pigs when their self-serving LIES and fear mongering are exposed. SQUEAL PIG SQUEAL" is not an objective answer. This closing statement, like many others so common to your past posts, really does an injustice to your scientific comments, full of personal feelings, interpretations, prejudice and any number of logical fallacy.
Thanks for listening.
Evidently you don't understand that you are talking....
Evidently you don't understand that you are talking to more than one person.
You are ascribing to me statements that I haven't said.
What others have posted....
Please read what others are posting about this person.
I am not the only one who is so tired of his comments, and insults.
Ok, so I read the back and forth here...
Mr. Physics Professor has once again been given some good, constructive advice regarding the overuse of insults and hyperbole to make his points.
How does he receive the constructive criticisms? With more insults, hyperbole and BOLDED WORDS.
Sir, humility is a virtue. Take the criticism and learn from it.
Seriously. You alienate those you try to persuade with overreaction to any and all posts that are even vaguely perceived by you as "anti nuke".
Just debate. No need for hysterics.
Thank you for listening.