Humour: Categorizing "crackpot" posts

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Andy Blanchard, Dec 1, 2003.

  1. 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
     
    Andy Blanchard, Dec 1, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Dec 2, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:OVRyb.75688$...
    > 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
     
    Juan R. Pollo, Dec 2, 2003
    #3
  4. "Juan R. Pollo" <> 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 (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 McClendon, Dec 3, 2003
    #4
  5. Andy Blanchard

    Paul H. Guest

    "Juan R. Pollo" <> wrote in message
    news:iVTyb.372301$...
    >
    > "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    > news:OVRyb.75688$...
    > > 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. :)
     
    Paul H., Dec 3, 2003
    #5
  6. Andy Blanchard

    Aardvark Guest

    > "Juan R. Pollo" <> 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 !
     
    Aardvark, Dec 3, 2003
    #6
  7. Andy Blanchard

    Mike Guest

    "Judson McClendon" <> wrote in message
    news:20031203161517.063$...
    > "Juan R. Pollo" <> 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 (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
     
    Mike, Dec 4, 2003
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. yawnmoth

    categorizing MP3s

    yawnmoth, May 25, 2005, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    418
    yawnmoth
    May 25, 2005
  2. designpro

    archiving and categorizing

    designpro, Apr 21, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    354
    John McWilliams
    Apr 21, 2006
  3. OldGringo38

    Re: Crackpot on every corner

    OldGringo38, Sep 10, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    405
    OldGringo38
    Sep 10, 2010
  4. chuckcar

    Re: Crackpot on every corner

    chuckcar, Sep 10, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    441
    chuckcar
    Sep 11, 2010
  5. Meat Plow

    Re: Crackpot on every corner

    Meat Plow, Sep 10, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    423
    joevan
    Sep 11, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page