The insignificance of TASS data

[Tass Mailing List <tass@mail.alembic.net>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:35:39 +0100 (BST)
From: Martin Nicholson <martin_piers_nicholson@yahoo.co.uk>
To: variable_stars@fsmail.net, Mike Simonsen <mikesimonsen@mindspring.com>,
     droege@fastmail.fm, richmond@stupendous.cis.rit.edu, msallman@pro-ns.net,
     welch@physics.mcmaster.ca, Robert_Creager@LogicalChaos.org,
     tass@mail.alembic.net
Cc: arne@aavso.org, rmiles.btee@btinternet.com, lolife@bitstream.net,
     varsao@fullzero.com.ar, patrickwils@yahoo.com, garypoyner@blueyonder.co.uk,
     variable_stars@fsmail.net, skygeex@gmail.com
Subject: The insignificance of TASS data

  This thread started off with my posting to the TASS mailing list. John Greaves decided, for his own reasons, to remove it from that venue and to circulate it to people of his own chosing. Of course some "Greaves apologists" were represented in the revised circulation.

  Not only that but he set up his own email account so that any reponse I might make to his posting would be filtered out and he would not even see it.

  That just about sums up John for you.

  I still think his posting to Tom was a utter disgrace.

  John appears to expect that any recipient of an email from him should automatically, immediately and unquestioningly adopt his advice. No chance of a dialogue of course – John doesn’t do dialogue.

  Anything less than instant and total obedience and John will, sooner or later,  go into “attack mode”.  John’s goes in for the concatenation approach. He starts from some second-hand  gossip or deliberately misunderstood comment and then proceeds to create a lengthy chain of innuendos containing phrases such as: “its seems likely” and “it appears that”.  He then works himself into a state of righteous indignation based on the fantasies he has created.

  You see you must never forget when dealing with John that he has an inconsistent approach to facts – and here I quote him directly “… you wouldn't believe me even if I provided factual evidence, so I'm not going to bother.”

  John really needs to learn that anybody who does an astronomical volte face of the magnitudes of his on the MISAO data had better hope that that people have short memories and that they don’t have access to the relevant archives. His extreme change of views plus the short time scale between the exposition of the two contrary viewpoints was, quite simply, a classic.


---------------------------------