To start with the assumption that there are more complete universes due to particle interaction than there are atoms in existence is not a good start. Inventing as yet undetectable dark matter and having no explanation for dark energy performing the thermally impossible does not help. Ignoring the evidence of FTL in galaxy jets because it doesn’t fit the mathematics pretty much sums it up. Scientists want the public to believe them because they know that in one of our holographic realities there is a bunch of highly educated people who know what they are doing and going to show the world miracles in the exploration of matter.

In some of the other holographic realities it is unfortunate but it seems a rather unintelligent bunch of monkeys got loose and built a machine of potentially devastating consequences. The problem is which reality is this (and in case you are wondering … it is best not to think too long on it).

(I just googled that myself and I saw Mr. Wright’s retracted comments were left unchallenged on several old blogs, now addressed. Thanks.)

But, hey, that’s just some passerby’s perspective. But then, that’s who your target audience is here, right? The uninformed or under-informed public. Were I you, I’d be wallpapering this thing with Mr. Wagner’s qualifications, and addressing with documentation any other possible weakpoint in any other supporter’s credentialing, like this other gentlemen I noticed in a separate thread having his credibility called into question.

Again, full-throated, factual support would be the right way to go. And yet I’ve said just that several times, and it’s like you’ve overlooked just those sentences and addressed the rest. I find that more than a little curious, sir.

Now compare that to your post that started this thread. See what I’m talking about when I say you’re making suggestive references and smearing?

Were I one of these UFC types, I might ask you to rescind/retract some of the things you say above. I’m willing to wager that Mr. Wright and his “uniquely vulgar and aggressive culture” might not be too bothered, because they feel you’ve impeached what credibility you might have had, but I don’t really have much stomach for somebody speaking out against someone doing a thing and doing it themselves in the same breath. Hypocrisy is the word for it.

Now that you’ve gone with just the facts, I can only think of three more things I’d like to see from this thread:
1) Editing/revision of the post itself to excise inflammatory and non-factual/non-pertinent content. I’d also suggest an apology/retraction, but I don’t want to look greedy here.
2) Additional factual data addressing the question of Mr. Wagner’s professional and academic credentials to address this issue. This speaks directly to credibility of the theory, and is something I’ve seen repeatedly requested and just as often ignored/unanswered.
3) Full deletion of the thread, in the inability/unwillingness to accomplish items 1 and 2. Not only does the original post weaken your position in the ways I previously outlined, it still fails to mitigate the unfounded reprisal statements you made in the post itself.

Obviously, I’d prefer to see 1 and 2, and can understand your being unable to comply with 3 due to either technical or chain of communication maintenance for possible legal reasons. Seeing as you’ve signed off on your first reply to me as the Sysadmin here, I’m assuming you have the ability to edit/revise the original post, as it’s a basic function of most blog software. So, this is all well within your capability to accomplish/rectify, right?

http://fahrusha.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/update-on-large-hadron-collider-or-fun-with-nuclear-physics/

————————

[Accusation]
October 26, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Fahrusha, thank you. And I agree that alleging a criminal background is a serious accusation, however in this case it’s backed up with the actual court documents, which are obtainable through the FOIA, and online via the LEXIS Legal database. Direct access to the documents in question are available at the Giant Midgets link in my previous comment. Again, thank you for your willingness to at least listen.

One thing to note: none of the other ’scientists’ in Wagner’s camp are particle physicists either.

————————

Perhaps a better response on my part should have included only the single reference link as shown below:

————————

[response]
UFC member Mr. Jim Wright’s legal accusations concerning Walter L. Wagner are incorrect and he retracted statements after threat of libel suit.

Mr Wright writes: “I retract the statement the Wagner is a convicted criminal. But only the specific term Convicted Criminal.” [1] and “I retract the statement that Wagner lied under oath, or lied to me.” [1]

[1] Jim Wright, StoneKettle Station (December 27-28, 2008) http://stonekettlestation.blogspot.com/2008/10/walter-l-wagner-pitifully-insane.html

“The individuals in this group argued an opposed opinion, and , while I/Wagner/whoever believe(s) x.” Add supporting documentation, simmer and serve. Finito–end of post.

Go on back up to the original post with me, JTankers, because this honestly is going to be a little lesson here in salesmanship. At this point, I no longer care who’s right or wrong here, but your smug refusal to admit that your post is less than “factual” is insulting my intelligence and belittling yours.

You make claims and suggestions about these people throughout your post, coloring it with personal judgments and short remarks that merely highlight facts you think you can vector into discrediting or portraying them as some sort of possibly dangerous fringe element.

Here’s a general rule I try to adhere to when I’m trying to pitch an unpopular idea (like yours/Wagner’s proved to be) to the general public: You want to prove your point, do so on its merit(s), and not by acting like an ill-mannered muckraker and opportunistic attack dog.

Uh, yeah. Perhaps not trying to smear these people you claim are smearing you might be a start. And when faced with someone who’s questioning your or Mr. Wagner (because I still haven’t seen anywhere any proof of his credentials stated and accepted as true), if you’re so convinced of your cause, speak to the facts.

I saw a lot of deft maneuvers regarding legal records/statuses (which seem to have been or are in the process of being resolved, but which the associated testimony doesn’t do much to enhance Mr. Wagner’s credibility), but absolutely no response on any of those blogs demonstrating in clear and unimpeachable fact Mr. Wagner’s supposed academic credentials. Instead, I see a lot of you trying to attack people, either out of your own fervor for this cause or on Mr. Wagner’s behalf.

As a previously uninterested bystander, this seriously suggests to me that you cannot do so, which suggests that Mr. Wagner is not the supposed expert you and he have made him out to be. That, taken with the ratio of vitriol to verdad you’re hurling about, seriously lends credence to the opposing argument, and diminishes your standing.

I hate to sound like Dragnet, but “just the facts, ma’am (sic).” If you have them.

Otherwise, this just makes you look spiteful and churlish.

Anyhow, the world’s still here, and from the shady way you seem to be defending your position, I’m tempted to agree with others, and believe it still will be when the LHC goes forward.

I’m sure you had a colleague who was uninvolved in this fracas, one with a law degree, vet your statement for possible libelous or otherwise specious language before posting it, right? I’m not a lawyer, so I really don’t know the threshold involved, but I seriously doubt it would help your cause that in “addressing” the UFC in this blog, you just left yourself open to the very means of civil address that you suggest they might have at one point been vulnerable to.

Funny: the site’s called LHCFacts.org, but I see a lot of unsubstantiated opinion above. This might be one of those “practice what you preach” moments.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion, however perhaps a reference only to the page containing the retraction would be sufficient for the purpose of correcting retracted and potentially libelous statements about the character of a scientist I greatly respect.

To my recollection I have made exactly one related blog since both sides basically “agreed to disagree”.

My blog was a “matter of fact” clarification of the record in response to recently discovered (old) potentially libelous assertions made before related assertions about the character of Walter L. Wagner had been retracted.

Sincerely,
Administrator, LHCFacts.org

Having followed the threads across the relevant weblogs out here on this particular branch of the internet superhighway you’re presently straddling two lanes of, I really have to say this: what you take as a “uniquely vulgar and aggressive culture” is most likely a highly-developed sensitivity to BS.

I find it particularly intriguing and more than a little erosive to your position that while you claim these individuals have retracted/rescinded their statements and set the record straight on Mr. Wagner’s record, both claimed and substantiated, both academic and legal, you decide to jump out in traffic one more time to smear these people with suggestions that these people (whose service to this nation you readily state) are somehow some sort of aberrant group of whackjobs.

Who’s the vulgar and aggressive little troll? Let’s not trouble “Doctor” Wagner with his P(iled)h(igher and)D(eeper): you are.

We posted our origin stories and how we were getting millions in government money and EVERYTHING! Did you see?! Shawn even blew up the universe for you!

Jeesh. Try and destroy the world and look at all the thanks you get.

No one ever takes you seriously when you’re in a league of super evil.

I also *love* the Mensa spam protection! Keep up the good work in rooting out evil at its source!

ThxKaiBai

The only thing i’m disappointed with is that I’ve only gotten one hit from this so far. Could you do something about that please? I need the traffic.

Thanks.

I think you’re fake. No, not like you’re made of marshmallows, but rather it seems “James Tankersley” is really an anagram for “Seamen Salt Jerky”. I think you are trying to goad this group of (ex?)Navy enforcers. I suspect YOU are actually part of an anti-anti-group. There has already been an anti-anti-anti-collaboration of un-uniformed founders (mostly naked to be honest) formed that will debunk your anti-anti antics.

Of course, James Tankersley is also an anagram for, “Enemas Salty Jerk” — in which case, eiw.