Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Humour: Categorizing "crackpot" posts

Reply
Thread Tools

Humour: Categorizing "crackpot" posts

 
 
Andy Blanchard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2003
John Baez's Crackpot Index ( http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ ) is a
great way to quantify ad hominem attacks in physics, I present for
your amusement a parody and method of categorising some of the more
outrageous posts about cameras and sensors made here. Be warned, we
collectively get a LOT of points!

The Crackpot Index
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A simple method for rating comments about photography.
Take a -5 point starting credit, then score as follows:

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
correction.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results
of a widely accepted real experiment.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with
defective keyboards).

5 points for each mention of "Bayer", "Foveon", "Mead" or "Merrill".

10 points for each claim that interpolation is fundamentally
misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this
were evidence of sanity.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how
long you have been working on it.

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally
and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that
your ideas will be stolen.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds
any flaws in your theory.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly
defining it.

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math,
but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone
to express it in terms of equations".

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only
a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory
predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur,
or fails to provide a "mechanism".

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Bayer / Mead /
Merrill, or claim that aliasing or sharpening are fundamentally
misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for claiming that work is on the cutting edge of a
"paradigm shift".

20 points for suggesting that someone deserve a Nobel prize.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Ansel Adams /
Dorothea Lange, or claim that film photography is fundamentally
misguided (without good evidence).

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they
were fact.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined)
ridicule accorded to your past theories.

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the
orthodoxy".

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in
a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Bayer was
a closet opponent of digital photography, as deduced by reading
between the lines in his freshman textbooks.)

30 points for suggesting that Bayer, in his later years, was groping
his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an
extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time
in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk
you out of your theory.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis,
stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

40 points for claiming that the "photographic establishment" is
engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its
well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a
modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated,
present-day photography will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30
more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists
who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no
concrete testable predictions.

With apologies to John Baez,
Andy
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2003
Too long and not that funny

Gary Eickmeier

Andy Blanchard wrote:
> John Baez's Crackpot Index ( http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ ) is a
> great way to quantify ad hominem attacks in physics, I present for
> your amusement a parody and method of categorising some of the more
> outrageous posts about cameras and sensors made here. Be warned, we
> collectively get a LOT of points!
>
> The Crackpot Index
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> A simple method for rating comments about photography.
> Take a -5 point starting credit, then score as follows:
>
> 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
>
> 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
>
> 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
>
> 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
> correction.
>
> 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results
> of a widely accepted real experiment.
>
> 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with
> defective keyboards).
>
> 5 points for each mention of "Bayer", "Foveon", "Mead" or "Merrill".
>
> 10 points for each claim that interpolation is fundamentally
> misguided (without good evidence).
>
> 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this
> were evidence of sanity.
>
> 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how
> long you have been working on it.
>
> 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally
> and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that
> your ideas will be stolen.
>
> 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds
> any flaws in your theory.
>
> 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly
> defining it.
>
> 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math,
> but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone
> to express it in terms of equations".
>
> 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only
> a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
>
> 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory
> predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur,
> or fails to provide a "mechanism".
>
> 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Bayer / Mead /
> Merrill, or claim that aliasing or sharpening are fundamentally
> misguided (without good evidence).
>
> 10 points for claiming that work is on the cutting edge of a
> "paradigm shift".
>
> 20 points for suggesting that someone deserve a Nobel prize.
>
> 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Ansel Adams /
> Dorothea Lange, or claim that film photography is fundamentally
> misguided (without good evidence).
>
> 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they
> were fact.
>
> 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined)
> ridicule accorded to your past theories.
>
> 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
>
> 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the
> orthodoxy".
>
> 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in
> a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Bayer was
> a closet opponent of digital photography, as deduced by reading
> between the lines in his freshman textbooks.)
>
> 30 points for suggesting that Bayer, in his later years, was groping
> his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
>
> 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an
> extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
>
> 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time
> in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk
> you out of your theory.
>
> 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis,
> stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
>
> 40 points for claiming that the "photographic establishment" is
> engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its
> well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
>
> 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a
> modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
>
> 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated,
> present-day photography will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30
> more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists
> who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
>
> 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no
> concrete testable predictions.
>
> With apologies to John Baez,
> Andy


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Juan R. Pollo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2003

"Gary Eickmeier" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:OVRyb.75688$(E-Mail Removed) om...
> Too long and not that funny
>


I for one am happy and relieved that physicists have a sense of humor. Now
if one of them could *really* explain to me how gravity works, I'll stop
comparing them to economists.

Juan

 
Reply With Quote
 
Judson McClendon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2003
"Juan R. Pollo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> I for one am happy and relieved that physicists have a sense of humor. Now
> if one of them could *really* explain to me how gravity works, I'll stop
> comparing them to economists.


The planet's molecules like your molecules and want to get to know
them better. What else?
--
Judson McClendon http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul H.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2003

"Juan R. Pollo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:iVTyb.372301$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Gary Eickmeier" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:OVRyb.75688$(E-Mail Removed) om...
> > Too long and not that funny
> >

>
> I for one am happy and relieved that physicists have a sense of humor. Now
> if one of them could *really* explain to me how gravity works, I'll stop
> comparing them to economists.



You're asking the impossible, since gravity and a sense of humor are
mutually exclusive.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2003
> "Juan R. Pollo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> I for one am happy and relieved that physicists have a sense

of humor. Now
> if one of them could *really* explain to me how gravity works


Easy. The Earth sucks !



 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-04-2003

"Judson McClendon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:20031203161517.063$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Juan R. Pollo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > I for one am happy and relieved that physicists have a sense of humor.

Now
> > if one of them could *really* explain to me how gravity works, I'll stop
> > comparing them to economists.

>
> The planet's molecules like your molecules and want to get to know
> them better. What else?
> --
> Judson McClendon (E-Mail Removed) (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
>
>Judson,

I only want to know molecules of the opposite potential. to make a
meaningful molecular relationship stick. But at the same time, I don't want
to fall into a black hole, relatively speaking.
MikeS


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
archiving and categorizing designpro Digital Photography 3 04-21-2006 08:09 PM
categorizing MP3s yawnmoth Computer Information 0 05-25-2005 04:54 PM
Threads for Newsgroups Posts Stefanos Firefox 0 10-16-2004 04:58 PM
Combine-and-Decode multipart news posts? William W. Plummer Firefox 0 07-03-2004 12:37 AM
Arrange emails + posts by thread? URAQT2 Firefox 9 02-24-2004 06:15 AM



Advertisments