[vsnet-alert 11308] re recent postings by John Greaves

[redvars at fastmail.co.uk]

As usual, Nicholson, just as when you used to post to VSX discussion
under the name Hannah Varley (sadly evidence lost because when it was
shown they were from your modem and not from Eire VSX discussion
moderation deleted them) you commence your email with the full subject
heading including the full name of the person who you no doubt are
claiming personal attacks from.  The subject heading was already there,
a simply reply to would do.

Now note in you moth eaten little brain for once.  Even if you re-write
your webpages, itself not unprecedented, and no matter how much
hyperbole goes into your statements on my supposed bad behaviour as
opposed to you instead actually answering to why you did things for once
with some sort of meaning, the trail from OEJV 35 where you acknowledge
and state where you get the J mag, J-Ks colours and so on idea from, and
prior to which you barely ever found any red variable, to ejaavso 96 is
clear.  And no matter what I say nor what you say, it is clear to anyone
who actually bothers to read them as to how you began and continued to
identify uncatalogued (ostensibly uncatalogued, remember Patrick Wils
hadn't taken on AAVSO VSX data management in January 2007, or if so not
for long, and it was moribund.  There is far more in AAVSO VSX now, and
the more isn't necessarily newer than January 2007) NSVS red variables
as a consequence of seeing a note by me to AAVSO Discussion, a point you
claim and clarify yourself on your webpages and in OEJV 35.  As it is
also clear you had little success before then and according to yourself
much success afterwards.

How is it that at publication time, over eighteen month's later, with a
new and revitalised AAVSO VSX dataset, much expanded and much increased,
you decided not to do another literature search?  Possibly because I'd
told you once that some had been already published and appeared in
SIMBAD with more accurate classifications than L:?  You'd've only "lost"
about a hundred of 'em, at the very, very most.

Now I don't particularly care anymore about this crap about rudeness and
behaviour.  It is immmensely tedious for lying thieving gets to get
carte blanche no matter what bullshit tricks they pull and yet when
anyone tries to address it is construed as a personal attack, no matter
how much evidence is shown or facts presented.  It's not done, how rude.
 Lying thieving get-hood, fine, just don't mention it, it's naughty to
do so.

As I read somewhere recently (not sure where) it is apparently becoming
very difficult for papers in general being written on science as
increasingly when something contradicts previous recent findings it's
alleged as an attack on the authors and not assessment of the results.

You often call for debate but cry foul or make personal accusations on
people's characters when you don't get your way.

The double star folk telled me about you, and boy were they right, the
variable star folk are either pretty damn slow or scared of you, whilst
the double star folk only have to ignore our blogs and put up with you
whining in Philica.com "observations", not the most respected of
academic venues.

Well, basically, you're stuffed now mush because I actually have given
in variable star astronomy, and because of you there are several
datasets that won't be described to people, and unless Patrick is soft
enough to tell yer, coz he's competent enough to figure 'em out himself,
or unless Sebastian is soft enough to divulge his own ASAS3
interrogating methodologies to all, you'll have no one giving you free
stuff and ideas that you can go away and then produce thousands of red
LPVs or easy eclipsers from, coz you ain't much cop at much else (in
fact you were pretty crap at eclipsers till you got a copy of peranso,
you figured out how to get minima to be at phase 0 yet?).

There's tons of stuff out there, easy pickings most of it.  Some is
getting published soonish hopefully, nice.  But it won't be butchered by
your cobbled together vague generalities pretending to be science.

And for those that are pissed off and reckon this ain't owt to do with
anything, well some of you I know have griped yourselves, bitterly, but
quietly, them blogs are nasty stuff, ya don't want to appear on them,
and it is also in fact a lot to do with everything.  Sitting around and
hoping it'll go away or get better don't work.  Web 2.0 buckets loads of
meaningless astroprojects is what folk will pick up on, projects that in
themselves never get anywhere or published, but because they're spammed
over multitudinous groups and lists and linked to in every signature are
all over the place on the web if newbies hunt for projects.  Screws up
on valid outreach does stuff like that, them that profess to be
interested in said.

1200+ L: objects, not even evidenced in the publication nor methodology
properly provenanced even to his own prior relevant work, for f's blue
blistering sake, what the hell's it all coming to.  Astrology?  We might
as well all go publish at Philica.com.

John Greaves

And don't tell me about venues and appropriateness, Taichi forwards his
stuff all over the bloody lists and places.  After he's renamed the
source name, that is.

I'd better pack in, I've tons of stuff on re this toad, and could
highlight much.

I think Martin ought to start giving you obseration updates again after
outbursts and doing superhump period updates for you again, coz them
that complained got no answer from vsnet mods, but when I wrote in and
said I thought he'd as much right as KT to do it, he stopped.  Damn
shame, he should start doing it again.

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail