Considering the number of flakes/crackpots currently posting to
sci.physics, I believe that it would be of signifant benefit to the
newbie physics students posting here for the first time that someone
constructed a listing of the known crackpots and clueless who tend to
post silly theories and otherwise crap to the newsgroup.

Being the usual lazy ***** but actual physicist that I am, I'd

Known Crackpots and Flake Posters to sci.physics
___________________________________________
Douglas Eagleson
Laurent
NoEinstein
Agent Smith
pekka.virta
sir.jean-paul.turc
OsherD
Astro Jetson
malibu
BURT
Sanny
Androcles
Pentcho Valev
Mret
Nomen Nescio

Readers, this is only my conclusion after reading their nonsense
posts. It it really hard for me to decide if they actually belive what
they post, or if they are simply playing a joke. I find it interesting
that not one of these posters dare to attach his/her real name to
their posts. Tells a story in itself.

I invite any physics student or physicist to add to this list. I did
my 15 minites of work on this, because quite frankly, the clueless

anti-Einstein folks simply ***** me off. After all, how stupid can
anyone be?

Considering the number of flakes/crackpots currently posting to
sci.physics, I believe that it would be of signifant benefit to the
newbie physics students posting here for the first time that someone
constructed a listing of the known crackpots and clueless who tend to
post silly theories and otherwise crap to the newsgroup.

I realize that this is a dirty job, but I believe that it's time for
someone to do this.

Being the usual lazy ***** but actual physicist that I am, I'd
prefer to delegate this responsibility to someone else, preferably a
second or third year undergraduate at a university of some
crediblity.

The point in doing such a service is that students who have completed
at least Physic 101 with calculus are, or should be, capable of
determining the crackpot posters. =A0On their identification, physics
students can be prevent from expending their time considering the
detailed content of many of these crackpot posts. The actual time that
these guys save from the crackpots would enable them to focus more on
their upcoming Theoretical Mechanics or Electromagnetics exam, that
these nonsense posts who repeatedly originate from the same small
group of posters,

I will even start the list for you, but don't have the time to
maintain it.

Known Crackpots and Flake Posters to sci.physics
___________________________________________
Douglas Eagleson
Laurent
NoEinstein
Agent Smith
pekka.virta
sir.jean-paul.turc
OsherD
Astro Jetson
malibu
BURT
Sanny
Androcles
Pentcho Valev
Mret
Nomen Nescio

Readers, this is only my conclusion after reading their nonsense
posts. It it really hard for me to decide if they actually belive what
they post, or if they are simply playing a joke. I find it interesting
that not one of these posters dare to attach his/her real name to
their posts. Tells a story in itself.

I invite any physics student or physicist to add to this list. I did
my 15 minites of work on this, because quite frankly, the clueless
anti-Einstein folks simply ***** me off. After all, how stupid can
anyone be?

Then too, there is an upside for this newsgroup composed of people
that actually post on real science.

People that post real science on sci.physics
_____________________________________
Sam Wormley

Anybody else want to stand up and take credit?

Hey, real physics people, you are now likey awating the outcome of
your mid-terms, and I wish you the best of luck. Hopefully we will see
you here when you are taking your finals.

Also, if you are a physics major, you likely have to take a few course
given by you schools E.E. department such as circuits and electronics.
The E.E. deparment at most universities like to throw a few zingers at
the physics students. Typicaly in a DC Circuts final exam, they like
to throw in one problem involving a triode vacuum tube, which is in
itself an evil thing to do with students who have never studied vacuum
tube characteristics. Take not of this: The grid of a triode vacuum
tube draws no current when negatively biased, =A0Most E.E. students know
this, but few physics students do. It's a common but trick question,
usually put into the E.E. exams to give the illusion that the E.E.
students ,,, Nah, I don't want to go there!

Hey guys, remember that I didn't tell you to rehearse this one. It's a
sleeper, because most students oday, particularly physics majors,
don't study vacuum tube technology. =A0Rest assured that you E.E.
couterparts have been drilled on this, if for no other justification
than CRTs are vacuum tubes, and still in use.

Heck, wait until you physics major have to complete two or three
semesters of physical chemistry. If you thing that an E.E. department
can weight the tests in favor of their students, just wait until you
see what the chemistry department can do! =A0Hint: Organics, molecular
weight. =A0Learn them for the majority of hydrocarbons, and other common
orgaic compounds. As a physics student, if you have to ask, 10-points
is generally detracted from your exam grade. Welcome to hardcore
ball! =A0:-)

Serious, these crackpot post from guys who have never cracked a
Physics 101 course have go to go from this newsgroup, =A0You know that.
Otherwise sci.physics is worthless as a resource, and years back the
newsgroup was very useful to have a physicist expain the approach to
use in solving a difficult problem, but that's no the case today.

Help out if you can, by citing the culprits and maybe flaming them to
the extent where they leave this sci newsgroup to an alt hierarchy,
where they will be appreciates.

Harry C.

.

Considering the number of flakes/crackpots currently posting to
sci.physics, I believe that it would be of signifant benefit to the
newbie physics students posting here for the first time that someone
constructed a listing of the known crackpots and clueless who tend to
post silly theories and otherwise crap to the newsgroup.

I realize that this is a dirty job, but I believe that it's time for
someone to do this.

Being the usual lazy ***** but actual physicist that I am, I'd
prefer to delegate this responsibility to someone else, preferably a
second or third year undergraduate at a university of some
crediblity.

The point in doing such a service is that students who have completed
at least Physic 101 with calculus are, or should be, capable of
determining the crackpot posters. =A0On their identification, physics
students can be prevent from expending their time considering the
detailed content of many of these crackpot posts. The actual time that
these guys save from the crackpots would enable them to focus more on
their upcoming Theoretical Mechanics or Electromagnetics exam, that
these nonsense posts who repeatedly originate from the same small
group of posters,

I will even start the list for you, but don't have the time to
maintain it.

Known Crackpots and Flake Posters to sci.physics
___________________________________________
Douglas Eagleson
Laurent
NoEinstein
Agent Smith
pekka.virta
sir.jean-paul.turc
OsherD
Astro Jetson
malibu
BURT
Sanny
Androcles
Pentcho Valev
Mret
Nomen Nescio

Readers, this is only my conclusion after reading their nonsense
posts. It it really hard for me to decide if they actually belive what
they post, or if they are simply playing a joke. I find it interesting
that not one of these posters dare to attach his/her real name to
their posts. Tells a story in itself.

I invite any physics student or physicist to add to this list. I did
my 15 minites of work on this, because quite frankly, the clueless
anti-Einstein folks simply ***** me off. After all, how stupid can
anyone be?

Then too, there is an upside for this newsgroup composed of people
that actually post on real science.

People that post real science on sci.physics
_____________________________________
Sam Wormley

Anybody else want to stand up and take credit?

Hey, real physics people, you are now likey awating the outcome of
your mid-terms, and I wish you the best of luck. Hopefully we will see
you here when you are taking your finals.

Also, if you are a physics major, you likely have to take a few course
given by you schools E.E. department such as circuits and electronics.
The E.E. deparment at most universities like to throw a few zingers at
the physics students. Typicaly in a DC Circuts final exam, they like
to throw in one problem involving a triode vacuum tube, which is in
itself an evil thing to do with students who have never studied vacuum
tube characteristics. Take not of this: The grid of a triode vacuum
tube draws no current when negatively biased, =A0Most E.E. students know
this, but few physics students do. It's a common but trick question,
usually put into the E.E. exams to give the illusion that the E.E.
students ,,, Nah, I don't want to go there!

Hey guys, remember that I didn't tell you to rehearse this one. It's a
sleeper, because most students oday, particularly physics majors,
don't study vacuum tube technology. =A0Rest assured that you E.E.
couterparts have been drilled on this, if for no other justification
than CRTs are vacuum tubes, and still in use.

Heck, wait until you physics major have to complete two or three
semesters of physical chemistry. If you thing that an E.E. department
can weight the tests in favor of their students, just wait until you
see what the chemistry department can do! =A0Hint: Organics, molecular
weight. =A0Learn them for the majority of hydrocarbons, and other common
orgaic compounds. As a physics student, if you have to ask, 10-points
is generally detracted from your exam grade. Welcome to hardcore
ball! =A0:-)

Serious, these crackpot post from guys who have never cracked a
Physics 101 course have go to go from this newsgroup, =A0You know that.
Otherwise sci.physics is worthless as a resource, and years back the
newsgroup was very useful to have a physicist expain the approach to
use in solving a difficult problem, but that's no the case today.

Help out if you can, by citing the culprits and maybe flaming them to
the extent where they leave this sci newsgroup to an alt hierarchy,
where they will be appreciates.

Harry C.

.

Considering the number of flakes/crackpots currently posting to
sci.physics, I believe that it would be of signifant benefit to the
newbie physics students posting here for the first time that someone
constructed a listing of the known crackpots and clueless who tend to
post silly theories and otherwise crap to the newsgroup.

I realize that this is a dirty job, but I believe that it's time for
someone to do this.

Being the usual lazy ***** but actual physicist that I am, I'd
prefer to delegate this responsibility to someone else, preferably a
second or third year undergraduate at a university of some
crediblity.

The point in doing such a service is that students who have completed
at least Physic 101 with calculus are, or should be, capable of
determining the crackpot posters. On their identification, physics
students can be prevent from expending their time considering the
detailed content of many of these crackpot posts. The actual time that
these guys save from the crackpots would enable them to focus more on
their upcoming Theoretical Mechanics or Electromagnetics exam, that
these nonsense posts who repeatedly originate from the same small
group of posters,

I will even start the list for you, but don't have the time to
maintain it.

Known Crackpots and Flake Posters to sci.physics
___________________________________________
Douglas Eagleson
Laurent
NoEinstein
Agent Smith
pekka.virta
sir.jean-paul.turc
OsherD
Astro Jetson
malibu
BURT
Sanny
Androcles
Pentcho Valev
Mret
Nomen Nescio

Readers, this is only my conclusion after reading their nonsense
posts. It it really hard for me to decide if they actually belive what
they post, or if they are simply playing a joke. I find it interesting
that not one of these posters dare to attach his/her real name to
their posts. Tells a story in itself.

I invite any physics student or physicist to add to this list. I did
my 15 minites of work on this, because quite frankly, the clueless
anti-Einstein folks simply ***** me off. After all, how stupid can
anyone be?

Then too, there is an upside for this newsgroup composed of people
that actually post on real science.

People that post real science on sci.physics
_____________________________________
Sam Wormley

Anybody else want to stand up and take credit?

Hey, real physics people, you are now likey awating the outcome of
your mid-terms, and I wish you the best of luck. Hopefully we will see
you here when you are taking your finals.

Also, if you are a physics major, you likely have to take a few course
given by you schools E.E. department such as circuits and electronics.
The E.E. deparment at most universities like to throw a few zingers at
the physics students. Typicaly in a DC Circuts final exam, they like
to throw in one problem involving a triode vacuum tube, which is in
itself an evil thing to do with students who have never studied vacuum
tube characteristics. Take not of this: The grid of a triode vacuum
tube draws no current when negatively biased, Most E.E. students know
this, but few physics students do. It's a common but trick question,
usually put into the E.E. exams to give the illusion that the E.E.
students ,,, Nah, I don't want to go there!

Hey guys, remember that I didn't tell you to rehearse this one. It's a
sleeper, because most students oday, particularly physics majors,
don't study vacuum tube technology. Rest assured that you E.E.
couterparts have been drilled on this, if for no other justification
than CRTs are vacuum tubes, and still in use.

Heck, wait until you physics major have to complete two or three
semesters of physical chemistry. If you thing that an E.E. department
can weight the tests in favor of their students, just wait until you
see what the chemistry department can do! Hint: Organics, molecular
weight. Learn them for the majority of hydrocarbons, and other common
orgaic compounds. As a physics student, if you have to ask, 10-points
is generally detracted from your exam grade. Welcome to hardcore
ball! :-)

Serious, these crackpot post from guys who have never cracked a
Physics 101 course have go to go from this newsgroup, You know that.
Otherwise sci.physics is worthless as a resource, and years back the
newsgroup was very useful to have a physicist expain the approach to
use in solving a difficult problem, but that's no the case today.

Help out if you can, by citing the culprits and maybe flaming them to
the extent where they leave this sci newsgroup to an alt hierarchy,
where they will be appreciates.

Harry C.

.

Considering the number of flakes/crackpots currently posting to
sci.physics, I believe that it would be of signifant benefit to the
newbie physics students posting here for the first time that someone
constructed a listing of the known crackpots and clueless who tend to
post silly theories and otherwise crap to the newsgroup.

I realize that this is a dirty job, but I believe that it's time for
someone to do this.

Being the usual lazy ***** but actual physicist that I am, I'd
prefer to delegate this responsibility to someone else, preferably a
second or third year undergraduate at a university of some
crediblity.

The point in doing such a service is that students who have completed
at least Physic 101 with calculus are, or should be, capable of
determining the crackpot posters. On their identification, physics
students can be prevent from expending their time considering the
detailed content of many of these crackpot posts. The actual time that
these guys save from the crackpots would enable them to focus more on
their upcoming Theoretical Mechanics or Electromagnetics exam, that
these nonsense posts who repeatedly originate from the same small
group of posters,

I will even start thelistfor you, but don't have the time to
maintain it.

Known Crackpots and Flake Posters to sci.physics
___________________________________________
Douglas Eagleson
Laurent
NoEinstein
Agent Smith
pekka.virta
sir.jean-paul.turc
OsherD
Astro Jetson
malibu
BURT
Sanny
Androcles
Pentcho Valev
Mret
Nomen Nescio

Readers, this is only my conclusion after reading their nonsense
posts. It it really hard for me to decide if they actually belive what
they post, or if they are simply playing a joke. I find it interesting
that not one of these posters dare to attach his/her real name to
their posts. Tells a story in itself.

I invite any physics student or physicist to add to thislist. I did
my 15 minites of work on this, because quite frankly, the clueless
anti-Einstein folks simply ***** me off. After all, how stupid can
anyone be?

Then too, there is an upside for this newsgroup composed of people
that actually post on real science.

People that post real science on sci.physics
_____________________________________
Sam Wormley

Anybody else want to stand up and take credit?

Hey, real physics people, you are now likey awating the outcome of
your mid-terms, and I wish you the best of luck. Hopefully we will see
you here when you are taking your finals.

Also, if you are a physics major, you likely have to take a few course
given by you schools E.E. department such as circuits and electronics.
The E.E. deparment at most universities like to throw a few zingers at
the physics students. Typicaly in a DC Circuts final exam, they like
to throw in one problem involving a triode vacuum tube, which is in
itself an evil thing to do with students who have never studied vacuum
tube characteristics. Take not of this: The grid of a triode vacuum
tube draws no current when negatively biased, Most E.E. students know
this, but few physics students do. It's a common but trick question,
usually put into the E.E. exams to give the illusion that the E.E.
students ,,, Nah, I don't want to go there!

Hey guys, remember that I didn't tell you to rehearse this one. It's a
sleeper, because most students oday, particularly physics majors,
don't study vacuum tube technology. Rest assured that you E.E.
couterparts have been drilled on this, if for no other justification
than CRTs are vacuum tubes, and still in use.

Heck, wait until you physics major have to complete two or three
semesters of physical chemistry. If you thing that an E.E. department
can weight the tests in favor of their students, just wait until you
see what the chemistry department can do! Hint: Organics, molecular
weight. Learn them for the majority of hydrocarbons, and other common
orgaic compounds. As a physics student, if you have to ask, 10-points
is generally detracted from your exam grade. Welcome to hardcore
ball! :-)

Serious, these crackpot post from guys who have never cracked a
Physics 101 course have go to go from this newsgroup, You know that.
Otherwise sci.physics is worthless as a resource, and years back the
newsgroup was very useful to have a physicist expain the approach to
use in solving a difficult problem, but that's no the case today.

Help out if you can, by citing the culprits and maybe flaming them to
the extent where they leave this sci newsgroup to an alt hierarchy,
where they will be appreciates.

Harry C.

Known Crackpots and Flake Posters to sci.physics
___________________________________________
Douglas Eagleson
Laurent
NoEinstein
Agent Smith
pekka.virta
sir.jean-paul.turc
OsherD
Astro Jetson
malibu
BURT
Sanny
Androcles
Pentcho Valev
Mret
Nomen Nescio

Also, if you are a physics major, you likely have to take a few course
given by you schools E.E. department such as circuits and electronics.
The E.E. deparment at most universities like to throw a few zingers at
the physics students. Typicaly in a DC Circuts final exam, they like
to throw in one problem involving a triode vacuum tube, which is in
itself an evil thing to do with students who have never studied vacuum
tube characteristics. Take not of this: The grid of a triode vacuum
tube draws no current when negatively biased, Most E.E. students know
this, but few physics students do. It's a common but trick question,
usually put into the E.E. exams to give the illusion that the E.E.
students ,,, Nah, I don't want to go there!

Hey guys, remember that I didn't tell you to rehearse this one. It's a
sleeper, because most students today, particularly physics majors,
don't study vacuum tube technology. Rest assured that you E.E.
counterparts have been drilled on this, if for no other justification
than CRTs are vacuum tubes, and still in use.

Known Crackpots and Flake Posters to sci.physics
___________________________________________
Douglas Eagleson
Laurent
NoEinstein
Agent Smith
pekka.virta
sir.jean-paul.turc
OsherD
Astro Jetson
malibu
BURT
Sanny
Androcles
Pentcho Valev
Mret
Nomen Nescio