Talk:Jack Sarfatti/Archive 1

message: The following material was pasted into this page unsigned and out of logical order on 17:28, 23 September 2005 by User:JackSarfatti.  It contains unindented verbatim quotes from emails and so forth.  I inserted header and this comment to try to keep this talk page semi-coherent.---00:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Much material pasted here on 23 September 2005 by [[User:JackSarfatti]]

message: I dispute the use of "alternative" here. That is not accurate at all. Sarfatti only used mainstream physics, i.e. Einstein's general theory of relativity, quantum field theory and standard ideas from soft-condensed matter physics. Where are examples of Sarfatti using "alternative physics"? On the contrary, Sarfatti has criticized Hal Puthoff & Bernie Haisch who really use "alternative physics" ,e.g. the so-called "PV" and "Yilmaz" challenges to Einstein's GR and the so-called Stochastic ED "origin of inertia".
(Editorial comment by anon editor, moved here from article by CH  (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editorial comment, moved from article to this talk page

message: I am removing the disputed tag after the good work by CH . --Apyule 02:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed tag

message: Received this tasty morsel @ Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:22:38 -0400 (EDT):
:Hey you Moron THAT IS NOT JACK SARFATTI! He did not write any book on CREATIONISM you CRETIN! Do your homework before defaming him with more lies. How dare you?
:woodymarble@mac.com
I simply got the names confused, it wasn't a "lie"; it was a mistake, you of course understand what a mistake is... considering you insult the very people who might be willing to tweak the article so that its more sympathetic to its subject matter. I already clarified my mistake here prior to that e-mail being sent; so thanks for beating a dead horse with your capslock, classy. - RoyBoy 800 03:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No to "Toy Boy"... and what gives me (and other editors who follow it) the right to argue with a PhD about science (something I haven't done here as yet, nor do I intend to given your behavior), is by cross checking opinions, consensus and arguments of other PhD's. Especially the ones who do not demean and/or filibuster their opponents. Wiki, as the term literally means, is quick to correct mistakes and reflect changing/new paradigms which show promise. I found the list amusing, but this is a big Wiki; so I'm unsure how applicable or helpful it is (as Wiki can control their own, ironically through discussion pages to hash things out)... especially since I can come up with a few more definitions of "PSEUDOSCIENTIST" which are a bit more inclusive and less age specific; but we digress. - RoyBoy 800 06:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A jpg of Sarfatti's PhD diploma is in open directory http://qedcorp.com/APS/JackUCPhD.jpg FYI GangofOne 08:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware Sarfatti's Ph. D. was under dispute.  Has anyone questioned that?  In any case, in terms of verifiability, jpg is silly; it's better for me to just check the records more directly.  I don't see the need, but if anyone is actually skeptical of this, I can check.  --C S 12:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RoyBoy E-mail 

message: Just a note for whenever the page gets unlocked: UCR needs disambiguation to University of California, Riverside.  Isomorphic 06:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: UCR disambiguation

message: I've edited the protected article to remove the contested statement that  Sarfatti's derivation of an Einstein field equation was generally considered nonsense.  The supporting citation was weak--a Usenet posting--and didn't seem to support the claim in any case.
I've also corrected the University of London section to say that Jack was a research assistant under David Bohm.
If there are any more factual inaccuracies, I will be happy to correct them  as soon as they are pointed out to me. Apologies for the inaccuracies, and for any I may have inadvertently introduced in my attempt to correct them. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, looks like somebody unprotected it, before I did that. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual corrections on protected article