Talk:Bogdanov affair/Archive 6

4959:

fame as TV stars or from their aristocratic "central europa" roots. Who knows? All this "affair" seems to be a direct effect of a sociological reality that has nothing to do with science.If the Bogdanovs were not known for extra reasons,their work would be seen as far different than it had been by most of the observers.Editors are now claiming special prerogatives and are diligently preparing a very negative article about their sacrificial victims (see Ze Miguel last post).When I read comments from RBJ I feel that his objectivity is locked away behind walls of irony,wit,distance and mistrust.He should know,however,that the brothers have achieved something that most of the editors had ever achieved before,not even himself (RBJ dit not get a PHD so far). The very essence of this article is a massacre game limited to the membership of those who had given good credentials for that, a subtle distinction that shut out many otherwise worthy potential editors. RBJ grew up in this article with a deep resentment against Igor.In addition, he developped a cunning acquisitiveness that in a normal editor would have been condamned as a deep moral flaw, scarring his character. He beleives Igor is hidden behind every post and he immediately writes it down. I don't think Igor spend his entire time to edit this inexhaustible article.Suspicions should be reserved for other infiltrators. (

5064:

present many papers at many conferences and get published in multiple journals, and use that to get tenure, research grants, and with that money they get many PhD students doing the grunt work for them, etc. this is the crap that is lamented by Martin Anderson "Imposters in the Temple: American Intellectuals Are Destroying Our Universities and Cheating Our Students of Their Future" (google this for some excerpts). some of these phony scholars are going to get away with it. that is, in my opinion, very sad but it is the case. you, Igor and Grichka, will not get away with it, because your work product has already been much more vetted after your initial publications, even though it was not sufficiently vetted in the degree granting process. there is only one way that i can think of to correct or reverse this, and PR (iamge grooming) is not the way. PR has worked a bit for you in the French theatre but not at all in the wider physics community and, i believe that will catch up to you in the French language community. eventually,

5027:). i was a fully supported student (even though i left NU without a degree, at leat i left with no school debt). they like to think of themselves as the "Harvard of the Midwest" and indeed there are some very good programs there (journalism is one that quickly comes to mind), but the school is not in the same league as Harvard or Stanford or MIT or Princeton or similar. (certainly not in Electrical Engineering.) they (at least in the EECS department) were trying to increase their reputation but maximizing the publication output and, even the number of PhDs awarded. this is what we call "degree inflation". it's sorta like "grade inflation" or "publication inflation" but even worse. grade inflation is a dilution of the meaning of an intermediate result, degree inflation is a dilution of the meaning of an end result. even though i was ABD, i came face-to-face with the reality that my research then and there was truly garbage and 3362:

brothers, and was interested to know what an article about them on En Wiki could look like... And even if I didn't see that many articles on Wiki, this one is probably among the most problematic ones. How come you have so many problems to edit this article??? I've been spending days and days reading the related websites, articles and documents listed and available on the web, and since then, I would like to know whether it's possible to get involved as third part in the editing of the article? I won't touch it until I get a positive response since I don't want to be banned (which seems to happen to all new editors of this article. But it's funny to see that they're all editing just this article and nothing else...), and remain able to edit my articles. Hope I can be helpfull on this issue

2615:"miserable truth".But be certain that we will not give up and allow a partial information take the place of the right one. I am a physicist.And I know that in supporting the brothers,I might set off a firestorm of criticism.But I also know that they may have done something valuable in the field of quantum gravity.I am greatful that they put new questions,some of which many theorist must have found impertinent,intrusive,or just plain wrong.But it does not matter,I think.What matters is that this refreshing work articulates new ideas about the initial singularity problem and proposes new methods to describe them.This is what I defend here.This is what we defend here. 1331:) into English? this needs to go into the article alongside where they misrepresented Woit. we have english of what Schreiber originally wrote, and where Schreiber says to Besnard that his criticism was mistranslated into a praise of their "research" and printed in the book, but i do not have an English translation of what the B's actually said that Schreiber said. we need that. have there been other physicists that have been critical of their publications where the B's also misrepresented the criticism into praise? any other Franco-phones are welcome to offer their translation. hey, Igor, why don't you do it? i would be interesting to hear it from you. 1827:

the fact that our paper was unintelligible or the fact we could have had some financial ienterest to defend our articles). I also think that the editor who wrote that some formulas were "plagiarized" from other papers is a non sense in terms of scientific research. Because the essence of science is precisly to build new ideas upon the common body of knowledge where one can find formulas that are identified by many other researchers in the same field. Motl knows that. And when he wrote that some of the formulas of our articles were "copied from other work" he did not mean "plagiarized" of course but only the fact that these formulas were known and valid.

1701:

846:

the arbitrators to block these accounts. I have a feeling it stems from the fact that User:XAL was given an indefinite block by the arbitrators right at the start of the case, and it is possibly that they otherwise thought it to be unfair that the other people involved in the article editing were not treated in a similar fashion. Although the Arbitration Committee are more or less the ultimate authority, one can make comments on proposed injunctions in the "Comments by others" subsection, which I shall do; I would also recommend you do the same on that page, to let the arbitrators know. Best regards, --

3112:

such as this one, it is a good idea that a wide range of different editors have an opportunity to edit it, just to ensure that the article is as factual and neutral as possible - to protect it would obviously mean that no further corrections could be made. I am sure that the Bogdanov brothers would not be averse to defying a particular arbcom resolution that they were permanently banned - not just injuncted - against editing the article, judging by their past behaviour, and so the article would be permanently protected forever. Incidentally, also, page protection for longer than 1 week is contrary to

1404:

really do not think that it is a good idea to add this phrase : now your technical point appears much weaker and (since he feels a strong contradiction) the reader gets quite suspicious about your judgement. In a way, instead of being a neutral expert, you suddenly appear as someone who cannot overcome its own contradictory position. Too bad, but it was your choice. Best, I/G Bogdanoff PS The book is going to be sold in the US and various other countries. We have 2 options : 1. We publish your text with the correction 2. We suppress it. Tell us your choice.

4868:. This is actually the article of the magazine Ciel & Espace that prompted the lawsuit. Quick translation: " answers that the Bogdanovs wanted to defend their thesis at Polytechnique in order to maintain confusion over their merits. 'When I heard that the thesis were going to be defended in our premices, while they have nothing to do with Polytechnique, I discussed the matter with some professors of the school. Some decided to attend the defences, which is a public event, nothing more'". Also look at 380:

had a major problem with it (he imagined the "bucket experiment" precisely for this reason). I maintain that inertia has been presented by many physicists (Mach, Barbour, Sciama, Dicke, etc) or mathematicians (J.P. Vigier) as one of the "unsolved mysteries of modern physics". I wrote in the article that my point of view is that this important question, which is well formulated in the context of Mach's principle, cannot be resolved or even understood in the framework of conventional field theory.

5110:

you finance yourself, you have no right to suppress factual, relevant, and salient information about your public work product, whether it is flattering to you or not. you have to accept that reality, and, if you really want to rehabilitate your image, you have to act as fully grown adults and start working on rehabilitating the content. sometimes people that have negative publicity have had later positive publicity offsetting that at a later time. e.g. Jimmy Carter has done that.

2849:

have nothing in mind.No arguments to address,no "demonstrations"to propose, nothing.You are a brillant loner,Ybm,a scavenger of other's people work,driving disastrous "stock thoughts" down and then stepping in,making a killing,and stepping out again.Serious physicists are acting and writing diffrently.Neither you nor rbj are even capable to speack theoretical physics at a significant level. Now let's wait what Alain r has to say.I bet it is going to be...difficult for him.

2249:, long enough that Igor will lose interest and maybe move on. Igor now thinks he can outlast the admins by repeatedly probing until some of his whitewash is allowed to stick. the only two ways the admins can keep him out of their face is to 1. give in and let Igor edit under whatever sock-puppet he comes up with next or 2. protect the article, at least long enough that Igor goes away. the third alternative (the status quo) will mean multple reverts of Igor's edits daily. 5087:. either you have to prove the content of the criticism wrong, in a persuasive manner (that means you have to persuade the likes of Alain and Baez and Carlip and Woit and Distler and Schreiber, etc). you need to understand the other models (which your critics insist you do not) you need to explore what it is that really doesn't work in the other models and speak to those problems. you need present your work product at conferences where these very critics will be 38: 4062:

he does not edit the article. That is the only injunction presently against him. I would point out, however, that you are specifically banned from Knowledge entirely as a consequence of the arbitrators' injunction, and I would ask that you please refrain from editing Knowledge until the arbitrators decide to lift the ban. You may of course, however, e-mail me with your proposed changes (see the link in my signature). Regards, --

1849:(and these "aggressive" posts were only written in response to the incredible aggressivity of YBM and his friends). Therefore when the article present our way of posting as "aggressive" it is not true. Once more, if someone can collect a significant number of "aggressive posts" I am ready to reconsider the question. But in the meantime I suppress the Charpak example that is giving a false image of the reality. 1723:(and these "aggressive" posts were only written in response to the incredible aggressivity of YBM and his friends). Therefore when the article present our way of posting as "aggressive" it is not true. Once more, if someone can collect a significant number of "aggressive posts" I am ready to reconsider the question. But in the meantime I suppress the Charpak example that is giving a false image of the reality. 920:

Guy is unnecessarily aggressive and shows a tendency to interpret the facts in a negative way. For example the "affair of the mention" : I offered to send the defense report to him (or whoever) in order to manifest the absence of any mention (which is not a big deal in itself but becomes such because of the misinterpretations of it). I had no answer on this point and the "Honorable" came back.

4981:

product in some manner that supercedes the critique of the many physicists who have publically identified your work product as "nonsense" or "gibberish" or "pseudoscience". problem is, these other guys have PhDs also. and they have some creditials you do not have. they have publication records that have stood up to the scrutiny of their peers, the mainstream physics community. there are

358:

is that a rule of the 25 apr. 2002 of the Ministry of Education predicted that the mention should not appear on the thesis diploma but only mentionned in the thesis report. Once more, mine does not bear this (or any) mention : only the report on the thesis itself. That's why Sternheimer wrote this afterwards. To finish with this argument, do you want me to send you this report?

451:

The statement in question that the Foucault pendulum (why Foucault? Who knows!) "cannot be explained satisfactorily in either classical or relativistic mechanics." I hate to lecture at an intro level, but mechanics deals with the motion of objects in response to forces. You're trying to morph a quite silly, elementary mistake regarding mechanics into the origins of inertia.

243:"his Nobel prize should have never been awarded to him... Charpak is an old and sour man, whose arrogance makes him hated by everyone (including his former colleagues).... He never did anything important and he does not matter in the world of theoretical physics.... He doesn't know anything about math.... PS (the Bogdanoff never said that they had invented Internet..." 3116:. Whilst it does require a significant amount of work to maintain the article to a reasonable standard, for which I thank the hard work of all of the dedicated reverters and blockers most gratefully, I feel that the benefits of a freely-editable article are greater in long term value than short-term expedience brought on by the misadventures of a few. Regards, -- 1477:"Tous les articles des Bogdanov ont été publiés dans des revues à “referees” extrêmement respectées. Cela veut donc dire que dans chaque cas, la publication a été rigoureusement soumise à l’approbation d’experts indépendants et anonymes. Des articles incompréhensibles ne peuvent pas passer au travers d’une telle procédure, et certainement pas à cinq reprises !" 204:

tout le monde (y compris ses anciens collègues). Cites moi une seule de ses soit-disant découvertes. Il n'a jamais rien fait de vraiment important et il ne compte pas dans le monde la physique théorique. C'est un expérimentateur. Il ne connait rien aux mathématiques. Encore moins aux groupes quantiques. Alors qui est-il pour juger des travaux des Bogdanoff?

2013:

are participants, here, who can understand french, and that they are going to verify the links that I have given to you ! If you do not do it, I do not see how you can write about this forums. Or if you consider only what YBM wrote, he is not really the most objective participant about this subject : he is the worst in the insults to the Bogdanovs !

1040:. Please bear this in mind: you cannot control the information that is available on the Internet, and the more you will try, the worse things will get. Other people and organizations have tried to hide or suppress negative information about themselves on the Internet, and only managed to further publicize that information and generate new critics. 1460:"These papers claimed—well, it is not clear exactly what they did claim. And therein lies the problem, for all were published in well-respected peer-reviewed journals. That means publication was conditional on the say-so of independent and anonymous expert referees. Nonsense is not supposed to get through this process—certainly not five times. 2740:

neither you nor Alain r have understood (or even read)Brans Dicke,Wheeler,Landau and others.It is clear to me that you do not know what TQFT is about.I am certain that you never heard of KMS states,quantum gravity or any of these theories.Yet you talk.You write.You try to impose your views on a problem that is far beyond your understanding.

771:

makes things even more amusing. I think if somebody abided by his brother's advice, stop using sock puppets, then this affair would have been over on 23 October 2002. A person's obsessive need to be right, even when he's clearly wrong, has caused this affair to linger beyond a single email. (The grade of honorable is a sad example.)

3399:

editing anything (even his so called article about epistemology (!). So I guess you can ban his account without any regrets (now that is demasked...it's a bit ridiculous). I would love to say that he's sorry about the confusion, but unfortunately it seems like he had fun doing this (which I can understand).

1982:

bogdanovs were aggressive and insulted people. Perhaps I missed something, but I have read many many insults TO the Bogdanov brothers by some participants of the forums. I hope that what I have written in the article is not too terrible, I know that my english is poor, feel free to correct the mistakes !

2421:(press the edit box to see the difference). the other giveaway is simply the timing for these sock-puppets to appear out of the ether. (i like the illusion to "Igor's factory", i'll have to use it in the future.) immediately after Igor and his other sock puppets were banned. hmmmm... who could that be? 5109:

as for the article and the publicity, you have to accept, as celebrities or public persons, that you do not have the right to hide any dirty laundry. you certainly have the right to have non-facts that are presented factual information corrected, but, outside of your own website or publications that

4958:

Let me tell you why I think this article will remain an impossible target. The main resason is that most of editors are determinely concerned with personal feelings against Bogdanovs (RBJ et al). That imbued all their editing attitude. This obsession with the 2 brothers may come originally from their

4845:

While the PhDs were obtained from the University of Bourgogne, a room was rented at the prestigious Ecole Polytechnique in Paris for the defense of both thesis. The director of Polytechnique tried to cancel the event because of concerns that the room would be filled with TV crews and journalists, and

4821:

I had heard about that, but not all the details :) From what I understood, they were in a big hurry to get PhDs because they had an ongoing plagiarism lawsuit about the book "God and Science" (which they actually won) and the fact that they didn't have actual PhDs weakened their case. I don't know if

4397:

Dr. Sternheimer described the twins as stubborn "wunderkids" with very high I.Q.'s, who have a hard time understanding that they are not "the Einstein brothers" and prone to shooting themselves in the foot with vague statements and an "impressionistic" style. He called teaching them "like teaching My

4385:

After two years at the University of Bordeaux, they moved to the University of Bourgogne and apprenticed themselves to Dr. Moshe Flato, founder of the journal Letters in Mathematical Physics and a prominent theorist known for his unconventional ways. When Dr. Flato died in 1998, a longtime associate,

4132:

To put it bluntly, Laurence: if you don't ask me for changes, of course they will never be made. I have no interest in wading through the detritus of this talk page, nor do I have the time; if you are unwilling to enumerate your concerns to me, then of course I can't implement your changes, and it is

3525:

Line 65, about Charpak's comment on french TV show. The quote "(sic!)" is a POV since it should be "(sic) without ponctuation. It's misleading the reader to the idea that this comment was out of purpose. Maybe it was, but the wikiarticle can't judge about it. Then, "Tout le monde en parle" is refered

3485:

A bit further, Niedermaier is described as "not a specialist in the field of the Bogdanov". This statement is true. But it has nothing to do with the facts exposed. Otherwise, we should also write on the positive comments by Lubos Motl', mentioning some "interesting ideas", that it shouldn't be taken

2918:

You know why it is the same text?Because I will go to the versions you (all administrators) revert,copy it and restore exacly as it is.This is the sole "stable version"that should be published.This is not the proof that I am alone.This is the proof that this article is controled by administrators and

2901:

Apparently these several people "think the same" to the point that they all keep reverting to the very same version of the article, to the comma. It is beginning to be increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that one person is making fun of us. This is most displeasing, and should be noted

2848:

at least-and forever-from real science.Your inability to speack about serious physics has been proven many times.If not,due to your need of your quotidian dose of "anti bogda"reactions,you would have already said all the things you have in mind regarding "A small journey...".But the thing is that you

2452:

I have made several attempts at editing,but the light shone on me more than on the subject.If I am supposed to be Igor,then let's be him.Do I diserve so much attention although I squeezed on the stage for this moment of applause? Instead,I would especially like to thank rbj for his styled analysis of

2016:

I really thing, more and more, that you are not serious at all as an encyclopedia, and that the articles are made after the opinion of the administrators, and an "elite" of wikipedians : the ones who have edited the most. In French we call that "à la tête du client". It is not really a good reference

705:

Hmm, I would like to point out that the goal is to achieve the realisation of a reasonable article; if something proves to be a problem which comes in the way of this, it is sensible to try and get around it. My personal and unqualified sentiment (I do not edit the article itself) is that it might be

366:

to hear how a Foucault Pendulum isn't well described by mechanics. But I know better than to get my hopes up. (In case a reader is unaware, it is simple to predict the state of a Foucault Pendulum using classical mechanics... all you need is F=ma and Coriolis Force. If the pendulum is really fast,

203:

Alors je te laisse bien rigoler en compagnie de Charpak. Si tu étais un peu plus au jus de sa réputation, tu comprendrais peut-être que ce prix nobel n'aurait jamais du lui être attribué. Charpak est à la retraite, c'est un bonhomme vieillissant et aigri, dont l'arrogance fait qu'il est détesté par

180:

5063:

scholarly work. work product with true intrinsic value, and not just PR. not just "window dressing'". unfortunately, it is true, in every discipline, that there are shallow, vapid, scholars that do little meaningful and novel research, but the little they do, they hype it up to the maximum. they

4973:

Sorry but you have to (dis)qualify me in a different way.194.2.44.95 is not Igor's signature.Your obsession to see him everywhere ranks vividly among the worst problems here.Campaigning against Bogdanovs would end up in a total failure of this article.There are thousands users of Wanadoo in Paris: I

4809:

this is a known fact for quite a while. it has to do with the story of the brothers approaching John D. Barrow, a professor of mathematical sciences at the University of Cambridge, who says the brothers contacted him "to obtain Ph.D.'s very quickly...." "...and they tried to con me into becoming an

4524:

Now that the Arbitration Committee has reached a decision, I'm planning to come back to edit this article, which I think still needs modifications. However, I'm not certain if the ban decision applies to me or not. If anyone (admins in particular) feels that I should not edit this article because of

4378:

Indeed, many aspects of the original rumor are known to be in error. According to Niedermaier, both Bogdanoffs conducted their thesis defense on the same day, in a rented hall with TV crews present. In fact, it seems clear that the Bogdanoffs got their Ph.D.'s at different times. Grichka got a Ph.D.

4061:

Actually, Laurence, rbj is not injuncted from posting here in this talk page; he is merely banned from editing the Bogdanov Affair article itself, as per the ruling of the arbitration committee, so he is "less banned" in the respect that he is permitted to remain a Knowledge editor on condition that

3609:

About the conclusion, stating that strings theory didn't produce any valid predictions has nothing to do with the article, except trying to convince people that string theory isn't a better model than the one proposed by the Bogdanov, which hasn't be acknowledged by the scientific community yet, and

3599:

Line 122, concerning the Spires citations, making comparisons with the number of other publications citations makes no sense. Bogdanov's work was stated as hoax by the scientific community. Who would dare citing some papers widely considered as a hoax? The comparison would be meaningfull without the

3559:

is a statement or action which affronts or demeans someone. Technicaly, it can be either intentional or accidental. It this precise case, I would recommend so that everybody agrees that we write "insulting accidentaly", taking into account the context. Talking about irony is a non sense, considering

3495:

As for the reports, I'm in trouble, since those documents are not public and are not aimed to be published anywere, unless there's an authorization from the author. I don't know if anybody here was provided with those authorizations... If not, then none of those reports excerpts should be published,

3184:

well, in any case, i wonder if i'm going way outa line to ask if some neutral and un-banned editor would like to take out the reference to École Polytechnique in the "Origins" section of the article. it was a mistake of the NY Times copied over. both got their Ph.Ds. from Bourgogne and, according

3111:

There is an additional reason why we shouldn't leave the article protected - you must remember that this is meant to be a wiki, and a wiki where all pages on contentious issues were protected solely due to the behaviour of miscreants would not really be much of a wiki. Moreover, in disputed subjects

1848:

I suppressed (once more) this "example of our aggressivity". Everyone who followed our exchanges on fora knows that we were not aggressive. This is a fact. We have posted more than 3000 messages on internet. If one can find more than 5 so called "aggressive posts" on this total it is the maximum

1722:

1403:

Dear Mr Shreiber, Considering the amount of books (Avant le Big Bang) that has been sold last week, a new lot of books has been printed 2 days ago. Following your unexpected reaction, we have decided to add the missing phrase where you precise "Just to make sure...etc". In fact, we

1206:

that is not correct, Rama. there are multiple web pages and USENET postings where publications of the Bodanovs had their surname "Bogdanoff" and the B. brothers have used both spellings, at different times, themselves. it is necessary that at least a reference to the surname "Bogdanoff" be made at

939:

4. Charpak : I have explained in lengh the reasons why I do not see a Knowledge article like the updating of an unhappy sentence in the particularly surging context of an internet discussion. I sincerely apologized thereafter and the return of this phase in this article gives an image which does not

688:

thee main problem with the Bogdanoff is that you don't know if their "explanation" are sincere or just to give the illusion that they have one. As you said, their "expalnations" about the Charpak incident is nothing but silly,specially from 50 y.o. men pretending to be geniuses. So why should we buy

357:

Igor's comment : I never said that Sternheimer did not write this. At this time, it was decided that there would not be any "difference" between Grichka and myself. It was only later that we realized that (contrarely to Grichka's) the "Honorable" was not mentionned on the thesis report. The reason

215:

PS (Les bogdanoff n'ont jamais dit qu'ils avaient inventé internet. Ils ont simplement dit qu'en 1980 (soit très longtemps avant que le mot internet n'ait été créé) ils ont fait une prédiction dans leur émission temps x concernant un réseau d'ordinateurs connectés entre eux sous le nom d'internex.

5048:

contribution to the body of knowledge. now, it seems that everybody and their dog has a Ph.D. or Ed.D. or D.Min or D.Engr. a ##D of some sort. the degree inflation has succeeded in completely diluting the value of the diploma in and of itself. it's so bad, that i could get a "Ph.D." from a mill

5035:

to have that PhD in order to have self-worth and not to participate in a charade that somehow i am a better person, a more competent electrical engineer or more astute intellectual than those who hadn't participated in such a charade. (this has had an effect in academic employment, although i have

4102:

If your interpretation of the arbitrors' injuction is correct, it is even worse than I thought, as a travesty of justice... If it is not, you "understand" what you want... Anyways I won't waste my time to write you by mail, since nothing I could suggest has never been taken into account, when I was

3579:

Concerning the "failed to convince most of the participants" or "any of the participants", I would recommend using most of the participants, since it's impossible to make a precise evaluation of whom they convinced or not. As for "meaningfull", I would recommend to keep "any scientific value" since

3029:

Also, can "someone" (gee, i can't ask a banned editor to do this) supply the details (or link to details) of the Georges Charpak quote (that is deleted at the moment) that "the Bogdanovs are inexistant in Science"? this quote needs to be documented well, and then re-included since the opinion of a

2540:

If this article was a little more realistic, instead of being as negative as possible, it would not need to be protected, nobody would be banned, etc. The Bogdanovs' opponents are too "zealous", and it cannot work in such a way. We are supposed to be in an encyclopedia, not in a forum for agressive

2434:

geeez, he must think we're stupid. we could tell that CatherineV was different from Igor (for reasons flattering to CatherineV) and that XAL was different from Igor (for reasons not so flattering to XAL/Sophie)/. Laurence67 is harder to tell, could be a sock-puppet or just a meat-puppet. but all

1826:

I suppressed the interpretation that was made of Motl's initial statement (the one dated June 16th). Because recently (october 3) Motl has reconsidered a second post ("Seriously about the Bogdanoffs II") where he wrote some conclusions that do not confirm his first interpretation (in particular

1792:

Although this point is quite minor (it is of no importance, in fact, if I had "Honorable" or no mention at all) but the truth is that I had no mention on my thesis report. I offered any neutral party to check this point (I would send a copy of my thesis report after defense) and the "arbiter"

1700:

1670:

919:

Let me first observe that EE Guy is mistaken when he believes that I was somehow hidden behind the comments about the "solar system expansion". A simple glance on these comments shows that it is not my style and that these phrases could not have been written by myself. Beyond that, I find that ee

845:

I must confess, I didn't quite see this injunction until it was raised here; I quite agree that the arbitrators would appear to be "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", and since EE Guy, Ze miguel, CatherineV etc. all contributed without violating Knowledge policy it would seem quite wrong of

648:

Here is my answer : “Igor: some problems of memory ? page 292, one can read "Quelle est la limite d’une suite de nombres qui, sans fin, deviennent de plus en plus petits ? C’est le zéro". Wich can (without any controversy) be translated as "What is the limit of a sequence of numbers wich, endlessly

450:

I got the same feeling a little bit ago when I read a Physicist stating that it is possible to predict a phenomenon with mechanics but, somehow, mechanics doesn't explain the phenomenon. If I can predict a pendulum's motion with mechanics then how does mechanics not explain a pendulum's behavior?

4853:

some of this is in that original letter from Niedermaier. some is information that i have never seen before, but it does not surprize me. do you have some documentable evidence, Ze? (about the "director of Polytechnique tried to cancel the event because of concerns that the room would be filled

4810:

examiner," he says. "There were two theses that they had submitted. They were laughable compendiums." As for the brothers, he says, "I regard them as mysterious people, not as hoaxers." (from John Baez's web page.) maybe it should be included. i don't want to be accused of "piling on" any dirt.

4560:

and neither your nor my name is on it, Ze. a couple of days ago (after reading the Final decision) i did a simple revert after waiting an hour for someone else to do it. didn't get chewed out or blocked by anyone. The "edit" reverted was the same content that Igor has been trying to put in since

3707:

As for my pseudo, Doublestein is clearly and honestly a wordplay with Einstein. I didn't know that the Bogdanov were nicknamed Zweistein. And if you want to know again my opinion about it, which is POV, even halfstein or quarterstein would be pretentious as a nickname for the brothers, and they're

3684:

Nice welcome. I don't have a very good knowledge of the issue, and never pretended so, since it's been only a few days that I found this article by consulting the articles linked to theoretical physics. As for my introduction, I just found it a positive attitude to introduce myself in a discussion

3589:

Line 102, concerning the HKU confusion, I think it's not usefull to state that there's no link with the International Institute for Mathematical Physics in Vienna, since it's written a few lines after. The confusion was with the Hong Kong University. Leavin this sentence leads to elude the "real "

3515:

Further, the sentence after Eli Hawkins referee's report "however, that paper was published later in another journal" should be maintained since it illustrates once again that even with negative report in one peer-review journal, it's still possible to publish the same article in another. And this

3402:

Thanks to Alain_r who put my attention on this matter, since he thought that I could be this Doublestein (for which I honestly feel ashamed, 'cause I wouldn't come with a new account freshly created, editing one or two little things about cosmology or whatever, and coming with : "it's funny to see

2697:

Dear Mr rbj:You act like a "kinda" judge in a trial.I "dunno"(your way of writing) if you realize this.But dont forget that this is not a trial and that you do not even understand what you are supposed to judge.the most damaging action on this case is made by ignorance.And rbj,like most others,you

2510:

I was wondering how long it after Nicholas removed the protection of the article that it would take for Igor, an "editor" specifically banned from editing anything at WP particularly this article in which Igor and his brother are the subjects, to vandalize the article with his self-serving tripe.

2483:

Laurent S) and since you now are virtually indentifying yourself as Igor, i must say that your attempts at impersonation are clumsy. this is why we don't believe you when you claimed support from all these other sock-puppets or fictitious physicists. you're not even very good at your attempts to

2012:

I believe that you do not understand something : people who know the french discussions on the forums (or fora, I do not know) are french speaking, so why would they be usual participants on the english Knowledge ? If they are wikipedians, it is on the french wikipedia ! I hope at least that there

1981:

Hello, I changed some parts of the article in Internet discussion and about television and Rayons X : I am not a scientist and I do not know anything about scientific critics and so on, but I have read the forums in "live" (I did not participate in it) and I do not understand why you said that the

1941:

i guess not now, Luis, since you, along with Igor his meat-puppets and a couple of his sock-puppets, have been cast into the abyss. well, at least some of us deserved it (not naming names but we all know who's been crapping up the article). i'm wondering how the admins and arbcom expect to keep,

1547:

Second step, Igor and Grishka Bogdanov undertake to apply this idea to a context that justifies bêta is equal to zero, thereby arriving at the FRW cosmology, where bêta is equal to zero as the scale factor R become nile. They reason as follows: "At the initial singularity we have beta=0, therefore

1246:

The brothers have published scientific papers under both names, with most appearing as "Bogdanoff" but they also use "Bogdanov" (Before the Big Bang uses this spelling). It's normal for Russians to use "-off" in French and "-ov" in other languages (it's like "-son" in English). It is unusual for

379:

If you had read the introduction to the CJP article, you may have found that my concern was not to predict the behaviour of a Foucault Pendulum but to address the question of inertia. Do you think that this phenomenon can be fully described by classical mechanics? The answer is NO. Even Newton

4985:

pseudoscientists, crackpots, quacks, numerologists, pseudohistorians etc. that have legit PhDs and the fact they have PhDs does not detract from the legitimate criticism directed toward their published product. the veracity of their published work product must stand (or fall) on the basis of its

3645:

I've read that the Bog bros have been ironically nicknamed "Zweistein" in some forums.So that "doublestein" sounds funny to me. As usual the changes brought by him are almost exactly the ones that the B.B. want to see in the article. But there are still things you just can't change(you can't help

3545:

Line 88 about Internet Discussions. This point seems important. First of all, it's not factually true to generalize the involvment of Grichka in the Internet Discussions. Igor is the one who participated most of the time. Therefore, using "they" and forcing Grichka to endorse the behaviour of his

3162:

I also support this point of view. I blocked the article at some point because virtually all contributions were pointless edits which were just a waste of time. However, I fully agree with the idea that it is not the article that should not be sanctionned because of the behaviour of the users who

1839:

No doubt: I didn't appreciate Dr. Baez's and others' behaviour in this story. Even if I have a university degree in theoretical physics, I don't feel competent to say if your work is good or not, but I'm sure it deserves, at least, attention, meditation and, above all, respect. Personally, I find

1713:

1398:

Of course the Bogdanovs have the right (legally) to do so (remove what give its meaning to a text), as everyone, but some fans, considered this properly disgusting, and Schreiber himself considered that this make sure that the Bogdanovs' concerns is not science, here is what the brothers wrote to

1178:

I have to say that this has been interesting to follow, and I really feel the article is (against all odds) getting significantly better. Maybe the peer review process isn't doomed after all. :) I do hope that the goal is to emphasize the academic implications rather than personal criticisms.

770:

Also, if you read some of the history of this talk page (and other newsgroups) a pattern quickly emerges. Igor repeatedly and forcefully denies that a ridiculous event or statement occurred. In many cases, irrefutable proof is given. Then a sock puppet appears who makes a bizarre argument that

631:

In that affair, allmost all the facts are around the idea of intellectual honesty. Each time, the Bogdanoff think that they've genuine point to "prove"them right. It’s never their fault,even things written in their own book. So i think that it’s highly important to show,at least once,when they‘ve

5013:

he would have gotten published in the first place, his work would have been dismissed by the mainstream community and most of us would have never heard of the guy today. then the correct label for his work product would be Pseudoscience. the fact that he had, or would get, a PhD would have and

4980:

ya know, whether 82.123.61.94 is Igor or some supporter of the Bogdanov's doesn't really matter. i'm gonna direct this toward Igor and Grichka, because i think they're probably listening in. Igor and Grichka, perhaps you think that the very fact that you hold Ph.Ds. somehow qualifies your work

4428:

So it appears that the WP article has switched around the two degrees. none of Igor's other edits are legitimate and he should never be allowed to edit this article about himself. he must be held to the ArbCom injunction and he is not fooling anybody with his sock-puppets. (what an incredible

3755:

Dear Laurence: Of course; this is how Knowledge works, we do things on the basis of community collaboration and consensus. Just because you are injuncted from editing the page doesn't mean you can't propose changes here; if there are any changes you feel that should be made, by all means suggest

3361:

Hi, I'm editing some articles about cosmology and epistemology, and I found the link to this article in the theoretical physics related articles section...randomly lloking for an article I can contribute to. I'm not french but I was living in Montreal and in Belgium and I know about the Bogdanov

2641:

wow! what is this!! some kind of trinity? or quadrinity or quintity? this is like it just came out of a science fiction movie and the little radio receivers in each of your heads just light up and you all started to speak the same words as in one voice. kinda like reading a creed together or

2271:

i'm glad to see the article protected again. did you see the latest in Igor's blatant hypocrisy? (how arrogant is he to think we are so stupid and cannot see through his sock-puppets? even more arrogant is he that he thinks he can hoodwink the whole physics community with jargon and technique

1155:

It took me a while to grok what EEGuy was saying about the academic credentials, but I devoted a paragraph to the academic credentials question because I grasped why it is central. Plus, speaking about the university's role is a less-inflammatory way for critics of the Bogdanovs to direct their

662:

Luis, I don't think it's necessary to keep the Charpak insult. There is already a quote by Charpak about what he thinks of the Bogdanovs' work, and a link to the article where the insult is quoted. The Bogdanovs have stated several times that they didn't realize that statements written on Usenet

635:

I think that either CQG does want to forget that they publish a bogdanoff paper, they explicitly tell that this paper was an epiphenomenon, wich doesn’t reflect its quality. But the Bogdanov keep on reminding that they have a paper accepted by CQG. So, Igor, why don’t we forget about it? You ‘ve

2739:

If you had a iota of idea about what is going on here,you would have at least written"something"in reaction to Laurent S analysis of all the obvious mistakes made by Alain r about Bogdanovs work.But you cannot do it.If Alain r could have addressed at least some answers,he would have done it.But

461:

In regards to your claim that you didn't receive a mark of "honorable," what grade did you receive then? Your advisor -- and yourself, for that matter -- have written that you received an mark of "honorable." Simply stating that there isn't one on a thesis report is bizarre. All French theses

3398:

Now, since everything needs to be justified, all the computers in the "company" I'm working for are displaying the same IP address, since we use a server and we're sharing an ethernet connection. Now, this collegue knows about the affair for much longer that what he said, he's not intersted in

2614:

You write to us,all of us,as if we were one and only one person.But we are not.We think the same but we are not the same person.Since the administrators, with their systematic reverts, are now acting negatively against the Bogdanovs,it seems inevitable that this article becomes the fabric of a

4535:

If I understand correctly, you are entitled to edit this article, the criteria being that you are a genuine Knowledge editor, and not merely a usernet-style warrior who happens to wage war on Knowledge ("they are not Knowledge editors but persons involved in the external dispute", in arbcom's

4391:

For the most part, however, the brothers were left to work on their own without much supervision, "pursuing ideas that are quite a bit out of the mainstream," said Dr. Jacobus Verbaarschot, a physicist now at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and one of the examiners for Grichka

3505:

Concerning the CQG chapter, the CQG' Senior Publisher Dr Andrew Wray wrote that they issued a "statement", and not an internal e-mail. The quote can be extensive, since we have the written proof of what has been said. Therefore, mentionning it as an internal e-mail without consequences is not

1207:

least once in case someone wants to Google them to find out what is out there. because i am accused of being partisan, i am trying to avoid editing the article (unless i see that Igor is turning it into a vanity page again) now that there are enough other editors and admins paying attention.

427:

I modified the article along my convictions. All the reasons of my modifications are explained in details here above. Is it a fair thing to revert my point of view without taking in consideration that I may have some good reasons to defend it? A good example of it is this questions of the

394:

Of course, speaking of "topological amplitudes" to explain inertia is not something current. This is why it was not well understood during our discussions in 2002. But it does not mean that the "topological contribution" should not be considered as a valid approach. This is all I write and

4414:"One has to have trust in the community," he explained. Igor's thesis had many things Dr. Jackiw didn't understand, but he found it intriguing. "All these were ideas that could possibly make sense," he said. "It showed some originality and some familiarity with the jargon. That's all I ask." 1816:

It has been proven that "CQG apology" was only a private email originally destined to some members of the Editorial Board (so that they could respond to the press in the middle of the "hoax rumor" spread by Niedermaier). Rbj's idea to reinject the totallity of this email is not right : I

1690:

923:

This proves (except for Ze Miguel who is quite objective and Catherine V who is also editing in a fair way) that it seems difficult for the team of editors to admit the material that I suggest in my comments. Probably because I am suspected to be both "subject and object" of this article.

819:

WTF ?!! I may be mainly editing this article, but I'm also doing other stuff. I wouldn't mind being blocked from this page for any duration they deem necessary (even forever), but I would resent being banned over this, especially since I've been trying my best to be objective. Rama, Nicholas

4995:

Einstein had no PhD (that i am aware of) when he first published Special Relativity 100 years ago. (in fact, i have to read the article on him, because i dunno if he ever got a "regular" doctorate. i think he started on the faculty in Berlin without a doctorate and maybe only got honorary

1911:

I would like to remind you that it is usually strongly suggested that people refrain from writing articles about themselves. Furthermore, there have been proposals to block the main conflicting parties from this article. Your edits here are tolerated for now, but I am not keen to letting a

408:

I maintain that what I wrote against Charpak was the consequence of a very particular context. When I said hereabove that Charpak himself "was not the real issue of it", it was absolutly true. My real "adversaire" in these heated discussions was not Charpak : it was indeed YBM himself.

3462:

Thank you for your answer. Since I don't want to get involved in a kind of revert war, I'll just introduce some proposal of changes according to factual elements. I'll base my first analysis on the comparison of the 2 versions that seem to be proposed consecutively after every revert or

983:

I will stop editing this article for now, at least until the Arbitration Committee implements their decision and the dust settles on this situation. I think it's a bit unfortunate, because I believe we are at a point where the article is mostly stable, interesting to read, and factual.

1840:

your ideas very intriguing. This is also, maybe you like to know, Prof. Luciano Bonora's opinion. Prof. Bonora is an execellent theoretical physicist from SISSA (International School for Advanced Studies, in Trieste) and he finds your theories "daring, original and very interesting".

1714:

160:. (I realize that you wrote that Ms. Knight-Jadczyk modified your words but it is clear from the single sentence I quoted that your response was not written by a native-English speaker). Your ability to stand against the odds -- indeed reality -- would make Winston Churchill proud. 4443:

It has been suggested, by Rbj, that the article be protected for a set period of time, being unprotected at intervals of perhaps a week for a scheduled window of perhaps two hours then again protected until the next scheduled editing window. This would reduce cleanup considerably

2798:

is only a desperate way to give some meaning to the less stupid statements you wrote (he didn't even try to address Alain_r's core arguments), one could argue this way that the Holy Bible deals with electromagnetism because of the numerous occurences of the word "light" in there.

3712:

Therefore, since it's written it the Wiki's policy not to asnwer extensively to attacks when we're entering a new discussion, I'll stop answering your comment, and will wait for some answers to my proposals. I don't want to argue or be banned just for making a bunch of comments.

3472:

Line 19 It's written that the Ph D degrees were obtained from Ecole Polytechnique AND University of Bourgogne. This statement is factually false. Theses were defended "IN" Ecole Polytechnique, but the school didn't deliver any degree. Ph D degrees were delivered by University of

259:

You wrote above "If youi read it again you will see that Charpak was not the real issue of this discussion." True, it was the value of the Bogdanoffs' work. You continue to defy reality above and wrote "this answer was even not directed to Charpak but to YBM and his friends."

649:,become smaller and smaller? it's the zero." I'm eager to see the way you'll try to "escape" from this. Another horrible mistake you made in your book is that the set of the imaginary numbers is the algebraic closure of the set of the real numbers.” Something to say about it ? 412:

As it is still the case today. Because it is YBM who decided to "recycle" Charpak into this article. He is the one that has decided to target us (Grichka and I) and whoever or whatever appears as "negative" (Charpak eventually) is a good element to satisfy is objectives.

4206:, I filled the forms, gave an fancy number for the required documents (proof that I am really "schools, tertiary institutions and other approved educational institutions"), and promised to pay 200 HK$ (which I didn't pay, I didn't want to make a "real" false declaration !). 4191:

All right, but how does this say that the postal address was provided by Bogdanov ? Igor's statement is that the HKDNR filed this information itself, and I can't see that this is invalidated in your mails (however weird a register filled out information on its own might be).

2488:

competence in physics, particularly a very deep and abstract specialty of the discipline? Igor, your very words and actions expose you as the imposter you are. it's easy to see that. why don't you save yourself and everybody else a lot of time and give this charade up?

1907:

I will ask Igor to refrain from reverting to furiously as to remove very valuable contributions from Alain r. Please discuss these questions with other contributors until a common version is drafted rather than edit the article in a way which is not acceptable for others.

959:

Unhappily, what you can write and prove, as what I can write and prove, don't matter for most editors of this article. The only reference is : what can be used against you is considered as being relevant, what cannot is "refused" and censored, despite all evidences we can

136:"Both students received passing marks of honorable, unusual in a system that almost always awards très honorable to successful candidates. The passing mark 'only happens to the worst students -- the students you only want to get out of the system,' says Mr. Verbaarschot." 2863:

it appears to everyone, other than you, that Riazuelo, Screiber, Baez, and Carlip have pretty effectively disposed of any pretense to real science you have attempted to make. the only difficultly is that you don't really engage them. they ask a precise question and you

1047:: he published revolutionnary math papers, never seeked publicity, and has always let his work speak for himself. If your work is indeed valid, it will be recognized sooner or later. If not, you'd better let people forget about it and not keep igniting the flames with a 4103:

free to express myself here, even when I gave links to prove what I had written (especially concerning the insults to the Bogdanovs on the forums), it was just removed. So I don't see why you would take into account what I would suggest now, if I have to do it privatly.

1277:

In French, Russian names are transcribed in "-ov". But apparently, the Bogdanov are not Russian, but French (of Eastern origin). French is never written in cyrillic, so it would be most peculiar if they did not have a fixed spelling (most likely in -ov) for their name.

5000:

concepts were not initially accepted by the mainstream at first. at that time, the correct label to give his work would be Protoscience. but what happened is that the other physicists, with whatever flaws and self-centered ambitions they had, were more interested in

431:

Regarding the Charpak issue, I consider it as an ethical problem. An encyclopedic article has an "oecumenic mission". Not a dividing one. Charpak is not my ennemy and I do not want him to feel like it. As I do not want the readers to think that he is my ennemy.

1582:- At this point ... - Just to make sure: I do not think that any of the above is valid reasoning. I am writing this just to point out what I think are the central "ideas" the authors had when writing their articles and how this led them to their conclusions. 636:

acknowlegded it only because you were complelled to. Taking a look at any internet discussion where you’ve been involved, we can see that you always avoid admitting something (specially the sock puppets of yours), as long as you can, with such pathetic excuses.

5091:. you are no Franck Wilczek nor Ed Witten nor Brain Greene nor Michael Duff. you need to really listen and learn from the likes of these persons if you ever plan to be physicists (that is recognized as such). otherwise you're "just" television personalities 4168:

Whatever the banning status is, I think that a single notice on the article (protected to deal with vandalism/controversy) is all that is required, since it directs people to the talk page. Having two or more notices on the article itself seems like clutter.

3600:

controversy. Maybe the papers wouldn't be cited more, but the context wouldn't be a problem. Therefore, considering factual elements, the spires chapter should be used just to emphasize the fact that a paper discredited by the scientific community is condemned.

2395:

Notice : the above text has been posting from a dedicated server of an hosting company. It is very likely that a proxy has been setted up on this host on purpose. Moreover the edit shows Igor typographic habits, like multiple spaces after ponctuation marks.

4974:

am one of them. And I dare to say that I am not Igor (nor Gricshka).If I had something to hide, I would have made up an account and portrayed myself behind a foggy pseudo. I did not and therefore I left my IP visible. Try to use this evidence properly.

391:, linked to the topological charge Q = 1 of the "singular zero size gravitational instanton" which, according to our views, can be identified with the initial singularity of space-time in the standard model (also described as a topological invariant). 674:

I have a suggestion: perhaps the reference to a sequence of numbers decreasing to 0 could be replaced by the unproven affirmation that "the solar system was twice smaller in volume four billions years ago than now (because of the Universe expansion)".

3535:

Line 71. Some coments were "much" more positive or simply more positive : this is a POV as well. Since it's written that some comments were negative, there's no reason to write that the positive ones were "much" more positive. It's destabilizing the

1152:

The Bogdanov Affair is an academic controversy regarding the merit of a series of theoretical physics papers written by French twin brothers Igor and Grichka Bogdanov (or Bogdanoff), and the academic credentials awarded based on the content of those

632:

been caught red handed. And it’s a quite good revelator of their personality. Whatever the reasons, they did cowardly insult(i would say difame) G.Charpak through a sock puppet, and they just can’t say “ok, we apologize, so let’s forget about it !”.

1345:

In this context, theoretical physicist Urs Schreiber, expert in (super)string theory and SPR moderator, published a text where he summed up his understanding of our ideas. Later, the text was published on Schreiber's website, preceded with his own

1138:

The Sokal Affair is mentioned very quickly in the article body as being in Niedermaier's email, so people interested in that link can follow it. I think it's better to keep the introduction focused on the "Bogdanov Affair" (as it is) and link to

5099:

physics. (now that, in and of itself, is not so bad. i like Robert Krulwich or Ira Flato here in the states. google them, if you want to know who i'm referring to. you can compare yourselves to these guys, but you're no physicists. not yet,

3144:

I agree with Nicholas despite the stupid work needed to block the socks. There are several thousands potential editors invited and welcome to evolve the, in fact nearly everybody who has a non-empty, non-bogda-only edit history on en.wikipedia.

2103:, who had spoken ill of them on television). Generally speaking, the discussions in the forums became more and more agressive, and the Bogdanovs were often violently insulted by the participants, especially on the forums sur-la-toile.com (topics 1393:

Just to make sure: I do not think that any of the above is valid reasoning. I am writing this just to point out what I think are the central "ideas" the authors had when writing their articles and how this led them to their conclusions.

689:

it ? It's like the "Schreiber incident", to say that a statement of a scientist is a "personal judgement" is astonishing. The problem with the link is that it's "too marked ideologicaly". I think it’s better to read it in a more balanced text.

598:

Oh, awfully sorry, it was an accident - I used a text editor to make changes to the article content, and I must have accidentally cut off the paragraph when I pasted back the modified text. I'll be more careful next time; sorry. Best regards,

2385:

coming from Igor's factory for breaking bans. Instead of believing that Igor's hands are impaled on some plunging needles, why don't you apply your energy to solve some of the "problems" raised by Laurent S about Mr Alain R recent critics?

168:

By the way, you also wrote earlier: "I am sorry but what you wrote about the Foucault Pendulum is not scientifically right. In spite of what you say, there is a problem with the behaviour of the Pendulum. This was at the origin of March's

3394:

Hi, this was a good joke from a collegue of mine, who I informed about the controversy going on Knowledge. He wanted to make fun of this circus. My position didn't change since my very first posts : no editable article about this "affair'.

1856:

I suppressed this sentence that does not make any sesnse. There is no connection between the fact that most of the physicists do not clearly understand topologicial field theory and the fact that Foucault pendulum is a piece of museum.

1730:

4133:

quite unreasonable to thus accuse me of partiality. If you really do have concerns, e-mail them to me in a concise and readable format, and I shall do my best to integrate both sides of the dispute as fairly and accurately as possible. --

2868:(in your own mind) evade and answer something different. there is no evidence in any of your pathetic defenses that you can even do the mathematics required to work the problems in the very physics you write about. it's all just talk. 2244:

i told the admins and arbcom a while back that they won't really be able to block Igor unless they protect the article after they settle on what they think is an appropriately NPOV version. at least they will have to protect the article

386:

To address these questions, I suggested a novel approach, a direct outcome of the topological field theory proposed by Edward Witten in 1988. According to this approach, beyond the interpretation proposed by Mach, I consider inertia as a

3690:

I wonder how you can find my proposals for changes identical to Bogdanov expectations since I read it again, and I find it quite opposite to what they want (for example, I insist on maintaining the insults to Charpak, and I demonstrated

2971:

May I know what does mean exactly : "All user accounts used by participants in the external controversy (involving the Bogdanov Affari) are banned from Knowledge pending resolution of this matter." ??? I see on the discussion page that

3526:

as a "fancy" show. It's the same effect on the reader, this is just to point out the weakness of the context. Fancy is a qualificative adjective, and therefore shouldn't be used to refer to this show. (even if it's really fancy! ;)

1793:

could see that contrarely to Grichka's there is no mention on this documents (for reasons I explained many times. If the article is supposed to become a "reference", it has to be exact. Consequently I suppressed the mention/.

1671:

4379:

in Mathematics from the Universite de Bourgogne on June 26 1999, passing at the lowest level. On the same day, Igor's thesis committee failed him. He later got a Ph.D. in Physics from the Universite de Bourgogne on July 8, 2002.

3560:

that irony is a form of expression in which an implicit meaning is concealed or contradicted by the explicit meaning of the expression. Irony involves the perception that things are not what they are said to be or what they seem

404:

The best proof that I take responsability is 1) that I recognized using a pseudo, and 2) that I continue to debate with you about my reasons not to publish any negative sentences about Charpak in the context of this article.

5078:

what you need to do, Igor and Grichka, is to work on your content rather than style. work on your substance rather than image. instead of trying to make it look to others like you're doing physics, you need to concentrate on

1636:

finding a general average (just making that average of the people cited here makes little sense), or possibly John Baez, since he was involved in the discussion with the Bogdanov (but I don't quite like one-sample or 5-sample

4455: 4403:

Certainly they did not come off as the Einstein brothers in their dissertations. In June 1999, Grichka was granted a Ph.D. in mathematics by the École Polytechnique in Paris but with an "honorable," the lowest passing grade.

4010:), you ain't supposed to be here at all because you were deemed an "external participant" not here to really make any contribution to Knowledge at all, but are just here to defend the Bogdanov POV. i do other things here. 3696:

If it's for the mention "honorable", I'm sorry but this is totally factual. You can't write that it's the lowest passing grade. The lowest is "passable". But if you want to know my opinion, even "honorable" is a shame for a

456:(Personally, I would have claimed that this mistake was a deep, sophisticated, and misunderstood claim that mechanics does not address the fundamental question of what is "mass." That question is the Big Daddy of Physics.) 4714:

fine by me. i dunno if other editors or the admins or arbcom will like an "piling on". my feeling is if it is factual (with some documentable link trail), relevant, and salient, there should be no reason to exclude such

3740:. I read in the history of the article : "(Moving of note about Schrodinger institute non-affiliation as per rbj's proposition - 23:38, 27 October 2005, NicholasTurnbull). And indeed, the number of "rbj's propositions" on 1834:

I replaced "...convince any other participants..." by "convince most other participants " . Simply because some participants (like Fabio Toscano) defended an other view. Toscano wrote on the 29/11/02 the following :

1708:

1871:

I added (which is a fact) that "the general theoretical physics community was influenced by the "hoax rumor" and therefore does not invest the necessary time and efforts to decide wether the papers are valid or not".

1745:

1802:

In the present version of the article, there are 2 reports for Igor and only 1 for Grichka. This is not normal. I therefore added a short phrase of the report of Majid (which would also prove that Majid does not only

5036:

served on the faculty of the University of Sourther Maine in Portland and have taught classes as an adjuct in other schools, most recently the U of Vermont.) i am not saying that all PhDs granted are phony as this, but

4707:"; translated: "It didn't take me long to make sure that they were talking about things they don't fully understand." I think the quote should be included in the list of critic quotes, replacing another one for balance. 1680:

In the present version of the article, there are 2 reports for Igor and only 1 for Grichka. I therefore added a short phrase of the report of Majid (which also would prove that Majid does not only complain about us).

4777:

are they using it for some reason? i am not sure of the salence of this information. why add clutter. if they end up using the domain to make statements or claims or to post the results of real research, it becomes

537:

I couldn't help but notice that there's a new "Igor B" who (I feel confident) is a distinct person from "Igor B." The reason I feel so confident is the modification to the photo of Igor and Grichka by our new editor.

2919:

that (in itself)is a problem.Because "Rama",as Snowspinner,asTurnbull,as Jacobi, etc,have no idea of what they are trying to deal with.They do not understand theoretical sciences and this appears in their reactions.K

2008:

And what about the mistakes ? You reverted what I wrote only because I am new, even if I wrote right things ? The insults on sur-la-toile.com and hardware did not exist, just because I have never edited on Knowledge

375:

said that one cannot predict the Foucault Pendulum using classical mechanics. In fact, it was done by Foucault himself in 1851 using Newton's basic physics. Did I ever write or said the contrary? Certainely not.

1130:

again to try and shed better light on why this controversy is worth talking about. I'll share some of my rationale so maybe someone will feel motivated to put some of the changes back in if they get reverted out:

784:

I think the statement about a decreasing sequence is easier to understand. People with a high-school education can see that's a silly error and it's well documented (specific page in the book). Let's go with the

1536:) They start considering the general form of any partition function Z(beta) = Tr(exp(-beta H)). They set beta equal to zero and find Z(0)= Tr(1). They notice that the Hamiltonian has disappeared in this equation ( 5058:

it doesn't mean that all PhDs are worthless as scholars. it means that their worth as scholars must be determined and supported by other, additional means. to become a scholar of worth, you actually have to do

4854:

with TV crews and journalists, and that the school would be seen as endorsing the delivery of the diplomas."?) i don't think it should be included if it can't be proven or at least supported by outside evidence.

4561:

the first ArbCom ruling and has been consistently reverted, but this time, the "editor" (i think we know who it is) was impersonating Fred Bauder. i wonder if he's gonno try impersonating Jimbo Wales next time?

1224:

It seems that asking Igor and Grichka is the right way to go about this — people choose what they are called (Jim or "Jimbo", etc.) Putting it back since there hasn't been previous complaint from them. Fair?

3010:

And still more : I see that YBM can take part to this page also, with his account... Now I don't understand, even at a technical level ! Isn't he banned exactly as I am ? So why is he able to edit this page ?

1578:

Schreiber is careful and would like to set out what he judges as a false reasoning. All the changes are made to get rid of the prudence or the irony. Not to mention the 2 sentences wich had been purely erased.

3476:

Then, it's written that they passed with "the lowest possible passing grade" (honorable). This statement is factually false since the lowest possible passing grade, even if seldom given as well, is "Passable".

1390:(At this point they mention the word, just the word, "Hagedorn temperature", not noticing that, considering the role the Hagedorn temperature plays in string cosmology, this is bordering on self-parody.) 3744:

is impressing ! And it works, as Nicholas makes some changes ! He even thanks rbj : "If you would please tell me your opinion on the above I would be most grateful; I appreciate your continued assistance".

1592:

that any of the above is valid reasoning. I am writing this just to point out what I think are the central "ideas" the authors had when writing their articles and how this led them to their conclusions."

416:

This is the reason I do not wish to perpetuate any YBM's elements (or as few as possible) into this article. As I do not wish to perpetuate an artificial and sad conflict with Charpak that I truly respect.

5068:

more French readers will begin to understand what those such as YBM or Alain or Charpak or others have already known and said about your work product and your books will become inconsequential, even to the

4936:

changes made rather than any big rewrite. i think the admins (like Nicholas Turnbull and, was it Metaeducation?) did a superb rewrite (even though i had problems with some deletions that later got fixed).

428:

Foucault Pendulum. I explained here above that I never, ever wrote anything similar to what is written in the article. It should not be difficult to establish it and to accept my version of the article.

5031:, not my advisor, not the department, put an end to it. i could not imagine myself defending this garbage in front of my examination committee. i had enough self-esteem to not buy into the notion that i 3569:

Further in the same chapter, we can write that a few participants turned quite provocative and responded in a similar manner. Both versions are reunited in one without altering the sense or misleading the

1779:

These are no "major reversions" but only a few minor factual infos and some nuances that are necessary. Good faith does not have anything to do with the fact that I did not get "Honorable", for instance.

738:

Yeah, I just saw on the arbitration page that my account is up for being permanently blocked (along with anybody who's edited the article). I was never notified... in fact, I've never been blocked. Good

467:

w.r.t. Charpak, I don't think it's necessary to list specific names. So let's drop Charpak but retain the fact that it is important to indicate that sock puppets were used to intimidate and insult people.

2017:

for an article of an encyclopedia. It is YOUR problem : this article shows the weakness of wikipedia by comparison with a real encyclopedia, in which this kind of things would be forbidden by a comitee...

1367:

What has been translated (aka not removed before), is more or less correct (at a little exception, see below), of course the translators failed miserabily to express the irony of the original message. --

585:

Nicholas did some good work but also deleted the paragraph I'd added about French threads. I suppose this was unintentional, but if not, could you please discuss before deleting/modifying ? Thank you. --

445:

I travel a lot. Sometimes when I wake up in a dark room, it takes me a few seconds to remember what city I am in, what hotel I am staying at, what I have to do that day, &c. It's very disorienting.

4027:

No : you have still your account because you "do other things here", indeed, in order to let you still do these things, on other subjects. But it doesn't mean that you have more rights than we have on

2584:

are the one ruthlessly reverting the article, to a form that removes facts that you don't like exposed (meaning you refuse taking responsibilty for your own actions, the very epitome of immaturity).

3292:

have been published in peer-reviewed journals by A. Jadczyk within the framework of this Institute. These two papers are not closely related to the issues addressed in the previous Bogdanovs' papers.

2353:) (again, identical edit, so we know it's Igor). the hypocrisy is naked when some other IP reverted Igor (then posing as Baumer) that he turns around immediately reverting with this justification: 1135:

Mentioning the precise date of October 22 is fairly irrelevant for the introduction and just breaks the readability. Saying it started in 2002 is fine, we see lots of precise dates-of-emails later.

2994:"theoritically" that's never stopped you. at least i abide by the ban and stayed away from the article itself. can Igor claim the same? your mendacity and sense of entitlement is incredible. 2576:

more negative regarding your behavior "Corector" just with inclusion of more facts about your on-line mendaciousness and narcissism (which is painfully obvious just by your behavior here). 2.

2359:. when i read that, i almost died laughing on the floor. i wonder if that is Igor's new strategy - to kill off his critics with this ridiculously naked and childish hypocrisy and dishonesty. 3073:....I believe the answer to the the question in your edit line is becomming very, very clear to everybody.....Anyway; I have used my "quota" for now; hope (assume!) others take over. Regards, 2929:

Another note: I demand that these ridiculous rants stop, or I shall block both the article and the talk page. Talk pages are there to discuss improvements to an article, not to harass people.

4409:

Igor, however, failed. The examining committee agreed that he could try again if he had three papers published in peer-reviewed journals, a common litmus test of legitimacy, Dr. Jackiw said.

1467:

Nonetheless, l’affaire Bogdanov might give post-modernists justifiable cause to snicker. And it leads you to :wonder what else is getting through the supposedly foolproof net of peer review.

1481:(this is the complete paragraph, note that the Bogdanov began to translate in the middle of a sentence and the words they added up and changed, the result is a complete reversal of meaning) 193: 265:

I am not demanding that you admit that you still insult Charpak but simply take responsibility for your actions. Your vaudeville excuses were amusing... now they're merely embarassing.

943:

5. In order to explain why it was difficult to explain our ideas on usenet, I added that our work is based on quantum groups theory which is not familiar to most of the participants

3338:

to see where that misconception came from. IMO, if defended from attack, the article should be in pretty stable shape, now. i leave it in your capable and worthy and NPOV hands.

4766:

Another domain name has been created in the Bahamas by the Bogdanovs just a few days after th-phys.edu.hk: maths-phys.edu.bs - the domain was registered as belonging to the famous

2076:

OK, but you would not erase something right to put back something wrong just because the participant who wrote it is a newbie, no ? So, what do you think is wrong in what I wrote ?

1408:(NB : this was a lie : the book is not about to be "sold" in the US or other english speaking country, as a matter of facts the translation rights for english are still free today) 927:

However, I will submit, once more, some facts that, in my view, should be integrated in the article. These are facts likely to balance the article in a more objective way.

3619:

And finally, the adjective "complex" in front of "field of quantum theory" is a POV aimed at illustrating that it's barely impossible to understand. It should be erased as well.

4789:

It was only used to publish comments on a french forum. The reason I thought it was relevant is that the contact information falselly lists Univ. Paris 4, which is La Sorbonne.

4746:

i think the venue is needed to support the factuality of the speaking of the statement. Charpak or his reputation has to defend the factuality of the content of the statement.

5009:

and had to eventually accept the wisdom and value of his work product. if it had gone the other way, if Einstein's ramblings were inconsequetial and just physically wrong,

289:

I have noticed a widespread lack of attention to the three-revert rule from both the critics and supporters editing this article, and I would like to let everyone know that

2381:

Don't call the priest and the mourners. The vast majority of the working editors does not bear Igor's anonymous presence. You see, Marc Perroud, Solar S, etc, are not

4419:

Igor got his degree in theoretical physics from the University of Bourgogne in July, also with the lowest possible grade, one that is seldom given, Dr. Sternheimer said.

639:

Shan Majid did say that he consider you and your brother as weak students, so why don’t we forget about the phd report (wich always are diplomatic in the Frensh system).

3444:

So, you should have some edits in the article before any measure will be taken. And what happens then, will depend whether your edits are seen as constructive, I assume.

4866: 2212:

Funny isn't it? We haven't been banned for a long time that by a sheer fluke, someone "innoncently" came to make some change exclusively in aid of the Bogdanov bros...

335:

EE Guy, You can call my "Vaudeville excuses" by all the names you wish; but you cannot deny that I am sincere and determined not to open a new front with Charpak.

3649:

Only the ones who have already contributed to wikipedia before the beginig of the writing of the article about the "bogdanov affair" should be allowed to edit here.

2161:

This is not a issue of content. In fact, re-reading the temporary injunction, I should just ban you until resolution of the ArbCom case, which seems a bit strong. --

2215:

I think that this article couldn't be improved (closer to reality). I think that it should be protected to prevent people from editing later in a way or the other.

3610:

we'll be reconsidered only if the Bogdanov manage to publish some unquestionable papers and demonstrations in the futur. Therefore, this sentence should be erased.

3187:

For the actual defense they rented a hall in the prestigeous École Polytechnique, arranged a big dinner with the president, invited the TV, Éand passed gloriously.

987:

To the critics: Good luck on your hard work, you're doing the right thing, especially YMB who has done such a tremendous work of documentation on the controversy.

3218: 2254:

this is both disgusting and humorous. i hope the arbcom understands why you, YBM, and me (much later) came to the conclusion about the B. bros. that we have: "

1899:

I just proposed Nicholas Turnbull to receive this "rapport de soutenance". He will see that (contrarely to Grichka's) this report does not present any mention.

4802:" (God and Science). On the back cover, it is stated that they have PhDs in science. The Bogdanovs have maintained that this is an error from their book editor. 2005:

Editing this article is forbidden to all newbies ? I believed that it was only for the participants who took part to the article before the ArbCom injunction.

156:

The first statement was attributed to Sternheimer. The second by a journalist investigating the story. The third -- and by far my favorite -- is written by

4727: 4424:"These guys worked for 10 years without pay," he said. "They have the right to have their work recognized with a diploma, which is nothing much these days." 3433: 1411:

When Igor published this very instructive letter, he added this comment (which is even more instructive on the complete autism of the author on morality) :

2470:'s journey, and even had to do a irrealistic surinterpretation of the gibberish your brother and you wrote to do so, he would be very good at dicovering " 1450:

About this kind of dishonest quoting (which has nothing to do with translation's mistakes as Igor pretended), here is an even more shamefull one : (cf.

2112: 295:

The three-revert rule states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours, either in whole or in part (see

2784: 936:

3. Internet discussions : again Bogdanoffs are back. But the truth is that I (Igor) was the only one to intervene in forums. I corrected this point.

890:

This proposal has indeed been made on . However, this is a mere proposal, and people can of course comment on it -- which I am going to do right away.

4653:

you may be absolutely right, Nicholas. a similar argument has been made about investigative articles and programs regarding holes in security after

1658:

Afflicted to intervene again on these points but I corrected some factual errors and I made some modifications to the quotation relating to Charpak.

3702:

I apologize for starting some articles on Knowledge at the wrong moment. I don't want to edit this article, since it's protected by an injunction.

3656: 2223: 2095:

Most pseudonyms purported physicists or mathematicians, defending the Bogdanovs' work, sometimes with irony against their critics (among them the

291:

from now on all violations of the three-revert rule made in editing this article will be followed up with a 24 hour block without further warning.

3580:

not being meaningfull, it could still be intersting, which isn't the case for the participants involved, who clearly criticized scientific value.

1544:) that a partition function of a topological field theory by setting the Hamiltonian in exp(-beta H) equal to zero.Let’s call this "result" A. 718:

Actually, now that the situation is stabilizing itself, I wonder what the impact of the arbitration commitee will be, when they take a decision.

435:

I might be blocked for what I wrote in the article and I would regret it. But I sincerely do not have the feeling to "vandalize" this article.

4739:

The venue where Georges Charpak said that the Bogdanovs are inexistent in science should be removed. It looks like a way to minimize the damage.

4602:

Thanks for your comments, everyone. I'll make proposals on the talk page first in order to keep in line with Rama's and Fred Bauder's requests.

3403:

that they're all editing just this article and nothing else...", I would do it much better!), and forced me to come back here to explain myself.

2698:

are ignorant.Even Alain R(whose supposed expertise in astrophysics should allow him to say sound things)does not know what he his talking about.

2190:

OK, I understand, thank you. But you, as a participant (and administrator) who is not baned, can you consider the evidences that I gave to you ?

1992:

As 100% of your edits (3/3) are at this article, you are not allowed to edit this article any longer, by the ArbCom's temporary injunction. --

342::Igor, do you honestly think that anything written above is remotely believable? Here are verifiable accounts that directly contradict you: 3105: 1887:

You often give several copies of the reports on the thesis, why don't you also give the "rapport de soutenance" (report on the defense) ??

118:

Igor, do you honestly think that anything written above is remotely believable? Here are verifiable accounts that directly contradict you:

3441:

should be blocked on sight, without wasting time to discuss contents of their edits. Less serious cases are asked not to edit the article.

4907:

Thanks a lot for your comments, r-b-j. BTW, I think the article is too long right now, and we should try to remove unnecessary cruft. --

147:"Igor defended successfully his thesis on June 8, 2002, getting also the "honorable" mark for reasons that it is not up to us to judge." 4035:

have the right to take part to the discussion (and the right, more theoretical, to have an influence on the content of the article), or

3939: 3925: 3883: 3841: 2980:

for the article "Bogdanov affair". But apparently he can still edit the discussion page ! Is it really fair ??? Shouldn't he be banned

2976:

takes part to it, with his own account... OK, technically I understand the difference with the others, including myself : he is banned

4932:

careful about changing, adding, subtracting any substantial amount of content. i think this article needs to "settle down" and small

4146: 4075: 3769: 3129: 2350: 2294: 1884:

Can gives us a copy of the "Procès verbal de soutenance" please ? Only this document is a real evidence of what you've said in the 1.

1757:

your reasoning above for the major reversions have absolutely no substance other than they are nakedly self-serving. i wish we could

1354:

One comment: the translation doesn't come off as praise, but as a summary. I suppose this is why they chose to include it in the book.

1247:

Russians to continue using both spellings once their name has been transliterated though (in fact, I've never seen somebody do that).

859: 612: 318: 2236: 1912:

conflictual situations develop. You would thus be well-advised to refrain from trying to enforce a particular tone for the article.

692:

I think that the mistake about the decreasing sequence is among the best to show the level of theses blunders and to be understood.

3546:

brother Igor (even if they're twins) is not factually true. Keeping the version "Igor (and rarely Grichka)" seems more appropriate.

645:

You ask " Luis : where did you read in our book that we wrote that "the limit of..etc.? Can you give me the page, please? Igor”.

4492: 4386:

Dr. Daniel Sternheimer, a mathematician at C.N.R.S., the French center for scientific research, took over as the twins' adviser.

4007: 3897: 3869: 2898:"You write to us,all of us,as if we were one and only one person.But we are not.We think the same but we are not the same person" 752:

BTW, Igor has already tried using sock puppets on this Talk page to make the argument that his solar-system blunder was correct.

3985: 3795: 3669: 3429: 1304:. My recent edit attempted to remove the extraneous sections, but I'm not 100% confident. Please double check my butchering. 104: 4315:

I'm very happy, because the HKDNR didn't try to fill my postal address with the address of some Hong Kong University ! Ilinka

3192:

there's another lateral movement of some text, that i think should be done to make the article clearer. this would be to move

192:

post at Jun 14 2004, 5:15 AM where you used a pseudonym to insult Charpak (you later admitted the pseudonym was yourself) on

952:

I hope that these additions will be taken in consideration for what they are and not be considered as a simple "reversion".

96: 91: 79: 74: 66: 5083:

real physics. you need to really worry about sweating the details, substantively considering the content of criticism and

3953: 3855: 3802:

less banned than the "participants in the external controversy (involving the Bogdanov Affair)" which were defined to be "

3335: 2308: 4209:

If I had paid, I could now be the happy owner of the domain name ilinka.edu.hk. Here is the mail I received from HKDNR :

3911: 2339:), (all accounts created today for the sole use to edit the article precisely as Igor had just earlier), and also as IP 2336: 2322: 1548:

physics 'at the initial singularity', by result A, is described by topological field theory." This is "result" B.(...)

2719:. geee, since i cannot see the invisible clothes, i must be unworthy to venture an opinion that the emperor is naked. 3628:

I hope you will consider helpfull those elements that I tried to demonstrate following a NPOV and factual philosophy.

1758: 3646:

introducing yourself to show that you've got a very good knowledge of the issue). It's almost a nice try. The next !

1351:

The translation of Schreiber's comments is correct. What is criticized here is the fact that one sentence is missing.

2716: 2273: 4846:

that the school would be seen as endorsing the delivery of the diplomas. The Bogdanovs refused to cancel the event.

4637: 4203:

Being on vacation, I had the fanciful idea to try and buy a edu.hk domain name. So I went to the HKDNR registrar :

4143: 4072: 3766: 3126: 856: 609: 502:

Created archive 5 (just learned how to do it). I hope I didn't cut any active discussions. There is now a total of

315: 45: 3030:

Nobel Laurate in physics has some authority (not necessarily final) about the value of things related to physics.

946:

6. About the Foucault Pendulum, I added that it could only be understood in the frame of Topological Field Theory

3971: 3827: 3813: 3113: 1417:

Schriber (sic) haven't responded yet, so we can ligitimally assume that he is delighted to be quoted in our book.

862: 709:

The the latest edits have been quite productive and reasonable, and I'd be happy if things could go on this way.

615: 321: 3309:(italics removed). if anyone does this change, i think no one can complain that it biases it in any direction. 1585:

About this last one, i've read that it was reinserted in the last version of the book but translated this way.

400:

I am not demanding that you admit that you still insult Charpak but simply take responsibility for your actions.

4838:

probably. it's a quickie. also, if the lawsuit gets resolved in any way, that information should be included.

1540:).They conclude that Tr(1) must be the partition function of a topological field theory in so far as they set ( 1156:

frustration in a way that divides some responsibility with the institution instead of just attacking I & G.

246:(Sorry I had to translate that last statement... it made me laugh! And, no, it doesn't sound better in French.) 706:

relevant, but if I see that a consensus is shaping to ignore this, it might be worth giving the idea a though.

4661:

into the tubes of the NYC subway.) but the counter argument is that the terrorists have these ideas anyway.

2588:

refuse to go by the rules. how arrogant you are that you think your motive is not transparent to all of us.

2108: 4730:. In order to avoid piling on, I propose to remove another quote, for instance the one from Jacques Distler. 4511: 4433: 4312:

that the domain name ilinka.edu.hk is unavailable (I don't know how long they will wait for my payment...).

3933: 3919: 3877: 3835: 3374:

That's quite curious : Doublestein seems to say that he found this page "randomly looking for an article"...

2232: 2055:

Yes, I understand the temporary injunction, to include everybody starting his Knowledge in this article. --

4456:

Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_The_Bogdanov_Affair/Workshop#A_proposal_regarding_enforcement

3714: 2344: 2288: 1946:, the "unnamed" from crapping up the article in the future using even more sock-puppets and anonymous IPs? 3665: 2747: 1955:

i'm reasonably satisfied with the article as it is at the moment. (can't imagine that makes Igor happy.)

949:

7. Since Rbj added a excerpt of Woit's quote, I added the rest of the phrase actually written by Woit.

4628: 4134: 4063: 3929: 3915: 3873: 3757: 3117: 2397: 2387: 847: 600: 306: 5040:

are. 50 years ago, the PhD was a relatively rare creditial granted only to those who made, not just a

5023:

some 20 years ago, i was a PhD student at Northwestern University in Evanston Illinois (and was and am

4960: 3270: 2340: 930:

1. Motl's phrase was not complete and cut in the middle. I added the rest of it to put it in context.

755:

Of course, this was after claiming he never said it... until YBM made it embarassing clear that he had.

4964: 3905: 3034: 2330: 2228: 572:

Oops, I messed up with the photograph when I was only trying to look at it. Please ignore my reverts.

4488: 4354: 4001: 3891: 3863: 3859: 3486:

into account since he's not a specialist of quantum groups and non commutative geometry or KMS state.

3280: 3224: 2945: 1642: 1451: 1357: 586: 573: 54: 17: 4339:

Interesting controversy, this! Wow, I didn't expect the science community to cause a hoo-ha here! --

3748:

So, may all other ex-contributors still take part to the editing of the article, in the same way ?

3661: 2795: 2463: 2115:. Some of them decided to alert the mass media in order to make their reputation as bad as possible. 1964:

i suppose i should ask, can i edit to this talk page, even if i may not edit to the article itself?

3979: 3821: 3789: 1323:... the Urs Schreiber commentary as represented by our friends of integrity in the book (copies at 522:

Nicholas, I quickly glanced over your edits... THANKS!! I think you did the article great justice.

4106:

Thank you, anyways, to provide me further proof of the partiality of Knowledge about this article.

3756:

them, and an editor may implement them if they feel those changes are reasonable. Best regards, --

2298: 916:

I was banned and had no possibility to respond to some of the remarks written in the pression DP.

4872:, from the Bogdanov themselves, in which they state that they were requested to cancel the event. 4170: 3901: 3831: 2715:

this is precisely the heart of the (pre-emptive) argument made by the "weavers of fine cloth" in

2326: 2312: 2104: 1309: 1251: 1226: 1184: 1180: 1102: 799: 549: 527: 473: 273: 5049:

in about 6 weeks for a few thousand dollars. how could that "diploma" have any bona fide value?

1179:

Even if those criticisms are valid, my comments on how people don't change their minds based on

4705:

Il ne m’a pas fallu longtemps pour m’assurer qu’ils parlent de choses qu’ils ne maîtrisent pas.

1517:

I don't have the book, i had it lent. But i can still translate the "page 365"(schreiber2.jpg):

1485:"All Bogdanov's papers has been published in well-respected peer-reviewed journals. That means 559:

I have blocked this user and invited him to create another username if he wants to contribute.

3947: 3849: 3817: 2302: 2284: 2193: 2137: 2020: 1983: 1529:) By Urs SCHREIBER Department of thereotical physics Essen, University November the 10th,2002 350: 126: 23: 4578:

Both of your names were removed intentionally from the decision, please don't make us sorry.

3437:

I read this temporary injunction so, that editors with more than about 75% of their edits in

663:

could have real-life consequences, which I think is a rather silly, but genuine explanation.

4869: 4831:

The lawsuit against the magazine Ciel & Espace is for slander. This should be mentioned.

4582: 4445: 3723: 3629: 3363: 2984:

of the discussion page, as we, the other "banned", cannot - theoritically - answer to him ?

2783:

I didn't notice that you, Igor Bogdanov, indeed corenered, who is editing through a chinese

2622: 2515:" Now, how long before they have to protect the article again? How long? ... We'll see. 2316: 2279:

as predicted, even though banned from the article, he edited the article 8 times just today

1044: 148: 4624: 4484: 4474: 4149: 4078: 3997: 3993: 3989: 3887: 3772: 3438: 3422: 3409:

Julien Alexandre (who still doesn't have an account, and will not. 11:16, 02 november 2005

3406:

Therefore, I wish you again a nice time editing/protecting/banning/inspecting or whatever.

3217:, created erroneous suggestions amongst forum participants as to a possible link with the 3132: 2949: 2100: 963: 2479:

i didn't respond to nor stylishly analyze "Laurent S" (unless you're conceding that you

3101:... something about trying to "figure out who is doing the socking." isn't it obvious? 2134:

Did you verify the links ? If some of you know Canal + they must understand french, no ?

1328: 1324: 4908: 4880: 4603: 4526: 4340: 3975: 3785: 1438:« Juste une précision : je ne prétends pas que le raisonnement ci-dessus soit valide. » 1055: 821: 719: 676: 664: 509: 486: 462:

receive a mark or mention in order to pass the defense, and I'm curious what yours was.

5114: 4967: 4941: 4911: 4894: 4883: 4665: 4640: 4606: 4585: 4565: 4543: 4529: 4514: 4496: 4477: 4462: 4448: 4361: 4343: 4329: 4196: 4173: 4152: 4081: 4014: 3775: 3726: 3717: 3676: 3632: 3453: 3428:

OK, more seriously: The problems with this article and its editors are handled by the

3380:), who said previously that he had "been following this "affair" for almost 3 years" ( 3366: 3342: 3334:

Thank you, Nicholas. BTW, the 2002 Times article can be read (for the time being) at

3313: 3167: 3149: 3135: 3077: 3056: 2998: 2956: 2933: 2906: 2872: 2832: 2766: 2723: 2675: 2625: 2592: 2547: 2519: 2493: 2439: 2400: 2363: 2262: 2196: 2165: 2140: 2059: 2040: 2023: 1996: 1986: 1968: 1932: 1919: 1894: 1765: 1645: 1627: 1606: 1503: 1371: 1360: 1335: 1312: 1282: 1254: 1229: 1211: 1197: 1187: 1105: 1076: 1058: 1022: 966: 894: 865: 824: 802: 756: 753: 722: 713: 699: 679: 667: 656: 618: 589: 576: 563: 552: 542: 530: 512: 489: 476: 324: 276: 4326: 3965: 3807: 3265:

The Bogdanovs have not, at the time of writing, published any scientific paper since

2762:

I just have more important things to do at the moment. I will reply later next week.

2544: 349:"In view of the imprecisenesses, I insisted on the same mark (passing) as Grichka ." 296: 125:"In view of the imprecisenesses, I insisted on the same mark (passing) as Grichka ." 1599:

Maybe Catherine V. can achieve the translation of the “comment on the approach...”?

1301:

I noticed that LLL accidentally duplicated each section of the article in this edit

539: 137: 4700: 4696: 3943: 3845: 3673: 3555:

Further, about Charpak's critics by the Bogdanov, we're facing a legal problem. An

3450: 3185:

to Niedermayer, used the École Polytechnique facility for the following purpose: "

3146: 2953: 2791: 2788: 2763: 2467: 2162: 2056: 1993: 1929: 1891: 1603: 696: 653: 541:

And I thought the French Government's intervention by Mme. Amélie de Bourbon Parme

4525:

the arbitration commitee decision, please state so and I will reconsider. Thanks.

2474:". He is not fool enough, though, to even try to address the core of the rebuttal. 984:

Congratulations to both the critics and the supporters of the Bogdanovs for this.

3186: 4458:. i dunno where it is best to have any discussion regarding it, here or there. 4350: 3741: 3074: 2667:

i got it! it's the Council of Bogosity promugating their finding. no one will

2096: 1432:« Just to make sure : I do not think that any of the above is valid reasoning. » 53:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4678:

The following are proposals to modify the article, please discuss accordingly.

2471: 1493:

submitted on the say-so of independent and anonymous expert referees. Nonsense

1915:

Luis A., please do not let yourself get provoked into revert wars. Thank you.

3992:, pending resolution of this matter." i just need to stay away from editing 4540: 4193: 3447:

If you want to propose changes here, you would be entirely on the safe side.

3432:. Until a final judgement is reached, the temporary injunction is in place: 3164: 2930: 2903: 2037: 1916: 1864:

I suppressed "Bogdanoff" after Grichka (everyone knows who "Grichka is").

1738:

I suppressed "Bogdanoff" after Grichka (everyone knows who "Grichka is").

1279: 1194: 1143:

for those interested in a general survey. (Though it's tempting to link to

891: 710: 560: 383:

Why does it have an infinite range? Why is its propagation instantaneous?

4373: 2453:

Laurent S "small difficulties".Are you ready for this invaluable response?

1043:

If you would allow me to make a suggestion, try to emulate the attitude of

4703:. The following is a quote from him about the articles of the Bogdanovs: " 5111: 4938: 4891: 4767: 4662: 4562: 4507: 4459: 4430: 4358: 4011: 3961: 3803: 3737: 3339: 3310: 3289: 3102: 3053: 3031: 2995: 2973: 2869: 2829: 2800: 2720: 2672: 2589: 2516: 2490: 2436: 2360: 2259: 1965: 1762: 1500: 1444:« Just a precision : I do not pretend that the above reasoning is valid » 1380:

sentence ? You know perfectly well that the Bodanov's originally removed

1368: 1332: 1208: 1073: 1019: 933:

2. Motl's comment was biaised. I rephrased it along his real conclusions

3722:

Sorry, I wasn't logged in. 217.136.253.167 is Doublestein. I apologize.

3279:

Despite the similarity of name, this is unaffiliated with the reputable

3223:

Despite the similarity of name, this is unaffiliated with the reputable

1159:

Bolding the Bogdanovs more than once isn't necessary...once it has said

4996:

doctorates. i need to look into that.) and, i am sure, at first, his

4658: 4539:

Obviously, I will ask you to act with particular tact and discernment.

4503: 3383:). Mr Julien Alexandre, why do you try to appear as a newcomer ? Ilinka 4310: 1072:

blessings, mon. please come back after the bodies have been removed.

216:

Ca c'est la vérité. Mais est-ce que la vérité vous importe vraiment? )

4986:

merit, not on whether or not they have PhDs or some other credential.

4473:

I did a copy-and-paste job spamming this article across Knowledge. --

3556: 2810:

Welcome back,Mr YBM,I thought you were banned!If not from Knowledge,

2746:

I think it's useless to wait for Alain r answer : he is in a corner.

1144: 1048: 3988:), a new editor who has edited other areas, are banned from editing 2356:"Edits of unidentified editors are not considered as valid. Revert." 2923:

Reactions such as ? I do not remember ever discussing physics here.

4454:

just for everyone's information, the text for this proposal is at

3516:

demonstrates some obvious failures through the peer-review system.

3092: 1621: 1452:

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1441745

285:

The three-revert rule - a general announcement to all editors here

4483:

Didn't get very far, though. You've been blocked indefinitely. --

4245:

Domain Name Holder Address: 3 rue des freres Bogdanov 75001 Paris

2621:

If you don't respect us, on what basis would you respect nature?

4654: 3274: 3266: 1174:

they can be referenced simply (Igor, Grichka, or the Bogdanovs).

1140: 1014:

original contribution to the body of knowledge. that makes him

1473:

In the Book "Avant le Big Bang", Giorgis opinion is quoted as :

4229:

Here is the registration information of the above domain name:

1626:

2. This list does not improve the article. Rama and Ze_Miguel

1616:

I once again deleted the list of SPIRES quotes. Two reasons :

32: 2572:

geeez, he must think we're stupid. 1. the article could be

485:

I second the removal of the reference to the Charpak insult.

3685:

where all participants are already familiar with each other.

1423:

Later the final paragraph has been restablished in the book

4186:) of this discussion, there was this question from Rama : 3022:... can they fix the spelling of "responsibility" in the 1557:

Such a pompous title like this is added by the Bogdanov.

1532:

The line of reasoning of the Bogdanov is the following: (

1341:

I suppose the sentence you need translation for is this :

1193:

I do not think that the name can be written "Bogdanoff".

1122:

Goal of the Article, and the Introduction reflecting that

3641:

Doublestein :One more newcomer, a little smarter, but...

3283: 3227: 2484:

decieve, Igor, how can we take you seriously about your

1525:

COMMENT ON THE TOPOLOGICAL APPROACH OF THE SINGULARITY (

4699:

is an important French mathematician, recipient of the

4184: 4039:

has this right ! You are not "less banned" than us for

3381: 3378: 3269:; however, in collaboration with theoretical physicist 1302: 1127: 4204: 2824:

isn't this a little bit like, ...how shall we say...,

2787:

or your brother, would have answered a single word to

1783:

Here are the 9 modifications I made on the article :

1661:

Here are the 9 modifications I made on the article :

642:

Anyway, another thing to remind of (from archive 5) :

4684:

i hope you don't mind me interspersing comments, Ze.

3377:

But in fact Doublestein is "Julien Alexandre" (see :

1329:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/fabien.besnard/schreiber2.jpg

1325:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/fabien.besnard/Schreiber1.jpg

1150:

This sentence is long and confusing after the comma:

3189:" anyway, i think that reference should be deleted. 3018:

next time someone has to revert Igor's vandalism ...

2944:

I block everybody on sight, whose only edits are at

1497:

get through this process—certainly not five times."

1427:, just look how its beginning has been translated : 627:

to relate the "Charpak incident" is indeed relevant

5044:contribution to the body of knowledge, but also a 4657:(e.g. an analysis on how easy it would be to toss 820:Turnbull, is there anything we can do over this ? 371:It is strange that you read my remark that way. I 362:::I, and anybody else who took any Physics, would 4627:, r b-j. Best not give them new ideas. Thanks. -- 2435:these other sock puppets are pretty transparent. 338:Now, I will answer again to your observations. 3284:International Institute for Mathematical Physics 3228:International Institute for Mathematical Physics 176:I, and anybody else who took any Physics, would 4822:any of this is relevant to the current article. 4510:. Good fun. I'm related to the brothers too! -- 3277:in order to study and develop their theories. 3275:International Institute of Mathematical Physics 3211:International Institute of Mathematical Physics 3026:section? (i'd do it myself, but of course...) 1761:with you, but you have proven that we cannot. 1101:You've been drinking again, haven't you? ;-) -- 1010:Ph.D. and you can only get those if you make a 4296:Address: 3 rue des freres Bogdanov 75001 Paris 4276:Address: 3 rue des freres Bogdanov 75001 Paris 4256:Address: 3 rue des freres Bogdanov 75001 Paris 3732:Some banned people are less banned than others 3219:Hong Kong University of Science and Technology 2458:You're very wise Igor, now you don't even put 544:was going to be the highlight of this comedy! 4961:ATuileries-152-1-33-94.w82-123.abo.wanadoo.fr 228:Here is my translation of parts of your post: 8: 4798:In 1991, the Bogdanovs wrote a book titled " 2413:another typographic giveaway is the use of 1569:An ironically(i think) "!" has disappeared. 4398:Fair Lady to speak with an Oxford accent." 1854:Foucault Pendulum being a "piece of Museum" 1728:Foucault Pendulum being a "piece of Museum" 3052:mean precisely nothing. at least to Igor. 1620:1. The subject is already discussed under 4323:... and you will see who insulted whom ! 3097:they don't leave the article protected... 2926:Beside what is it with your punctuation ? 4502:I've added some more Bogdanov Affair to 2368:it might work if you can't persuade 'em! 1563:The begining "I think" has disappeared. 1319:Hey YBM or "Luis", can you translate... 1018:Bogdanov and don't you ever forget it! 2256:We are not dealing with honest people. 51:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3958:and all others who meet the criteria. 7: 4963:aka Igor Bogdanov - Note added by -- 4392:Bogdanov's doctoral thesis in 1999. 4368:regarding Igor's latest complaint... 1928:O.K. Rama,no more revert for me. -- 4383:from the New York Times article: '' 4367: 3974:), a regular Knowledge editor, and 3209:For months, the domain name of the 2826:the pot calling the kettle "black". 2462:space after pontuation marks. BTW, 1817:suppressed the unecessary phrases. 1691:suppressed the unecessary phrases. 398:Now concerning Charpak. You wrote : 1575:Instead of “ because they think”. 330:Problems with Predicting Pendulums 31: 2792:journey in the Bogdanoff universe 2466:only addressed side details from 1051:-filled and aggressive attitude. 1006:Bogdanov, Ze. you see, he has a 518:NicholasTurnbull In a China Shop! 1436:French Bogdanov's translation : 302:Thank you for your cooperation. 36: 2580:are the "agressive teenager". 1442:Litteral english translation : 940:correspond at all to reality. 5014:should have no effect on that. 4757:Fair enough, I won't add that. 4580:And don't taunt the Bogdanov's 4552:heck, i just assumed that the 4357:? it happens once in a while. 4179:Back to the edu.hk domain name 1588:“ Just to make sure: I do not 1551:Some simple comments of mine: 1425:(but NOT the other sentence !) 912:The Zero Degree of my Comments 24:Talk:Bogdanov Affair/Archive06 1: 5115:18:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) 4968:12:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC) 4942:18:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) 4912:17:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC) 4895:16:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC) 4884:14:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC) 4666:18:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC) 4641:00:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC) 4607:09:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC) 4586:01:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC) 4566:17:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC) 4544:16:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC) 4530:15:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC) 4515:13:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC) 4497:10:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC) 4478:09:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC) 4463:21:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 4449:21:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 3336:Talk:Bogdanov_Affair/comments 3048:i guess not. and i guess it 3017: 1128:restructured the introduction 1036:There's a saying that states 4434:18:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC) 4362:23:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC) 4344:21:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC) 4330:06:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC) 4221:Registration Fee (HK$ ): 200 4197:21:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 4174:08:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 4153:17:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 4082:19:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC) 4015:02:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC) 3776:16:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC) 3727:15:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 3718:15:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 3677:15:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 3633:12:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 3454:10:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 3367:09:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 3343:00:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 3314:23:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 3168:22:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 3150:19:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 3136:17:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 3106:23:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC) 3078:02:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC) 3057:01:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC) 3035:21:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC) 2999:16:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 2957:15:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 2934:14:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 2907:12:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 2873:16:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 2833:16:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 2767:12:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 2724:16:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 2676:00:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 2626:02:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 2593:17:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 2548:07:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 2520:02:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 2494:23:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 2440:14:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 2401:14:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 2364:03:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 2263:16:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2197:10:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2166:10:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2141:09:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2060:09:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2041:09:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2036:You watch Canal + too much. 2024:08:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 1997:08:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 1987:07:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 1969:06:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 1933:17:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 1920:14:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 1895:13:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 1766:18:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1646:07:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1607:23:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1504:15:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1372:15:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1361:08:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1336:06:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1313:23:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1283:06:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 1255:18:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1230:17:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1212:16:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1198:16:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1188:15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1106:04:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 1077:01:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 1059:14:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1038:Information wants to be free 1023:01:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 967:10:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 895:15:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 866:15:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 825:14:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 803:13:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 723:13:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 714:11:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 700:11:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 680:09:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 668:09:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 657:03:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 619:15:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 590:08:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 577:08:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 564:07:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 553:04:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 531:01:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 513:22:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 490:09:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 477:00:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 420:I hope you understand this. 325:20:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 277:20:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 4237:Domain Name : ILINKA.EDU.HK 1654:Igor continues to whitewash 5133: 4299:Phone No.: +32-01-00000000 4279:Phone No.: +32-01-00000000 4259:Phone No.: +32-01-00000000 4242:Domain Name Holder: ILINKA 4224:Contract Period: 1 year(s) 4216:Domain Name: ILINKA.EDU.HK 3496:positive or negative ones. 3213:created by the Bogdanovs, 1788:Igor's "Honorable" mention 1666:Igor's "Honorable" mention 5095:about physics instead of 4623:Please, please, remember 4374:John Baez's Bogdanov page 3114:Knowledge:Blocking policy 2902:in the arbcom procedure. 2717:The emperor's new clothes 2274:The emperor's new clothes 2239:) 08:23, 18 October 2005. 367:then we use relativity.) 4865:Again in French, sorry: 4234:Tracking No.: NDN0128888 4213:Tracking No.: NDN0128888 3425:and you'll be banned ;-) 3273:, they have founded the 181:then we use relativity.) 4726:The source is Le Monde 4183:Back in the archive 5 ( 4031:article. So, either we 2377:Does Igor ever give up? 1612:The SPIRES endless list 1181:attacks and disclaimers 4928:i think we need to be 4674:Modification proposals 4319:Read the french fora ! 4250:Administrative Contact 3996:directly. if you are 1054:Best Regards to all. 4558:Temporary injunctions 4309:You can verify there 3430:Arbitration Committee 1977:Forums and television 1798:Reports on the thesis 1676:Reports on the thesis 1596:Dismaying isn't it ? 1489:that publication was 504:839 kb of discussions 49:of past discussions. 3659:comment was added by 3286:in Vienna, Austria. 3230:in Vienna, Austria. 2946:Talk:Bogdanov Affair 2226:comment was added by 976:Farewell from Miguel 972:Yes, obviously. LLL 506:about this subject. 194:fr.rec.tv.programmes 113:Discussion continued 18:Talk:Bogdanov affair 4439:Systemic protection 3784:actually Laurence, 3742:Nicholas' talk page 1634:. Rama recommended 5089:and listen to them 5061:and continue to do 4954:Impossible article 4800:Dieu et la Science 4687:No problem, r-b-j. 4512:Alexander Bogdanov 4305:Email address: xxx 4285:Email address: xxx 4265:Email address: xxx 3093:i just don't know 389:topological field 4355:Jan Hendrik Schön 4335:Interesting topic 4270:Technical Contact 3680: 3281:Erwin Schrödinger 3271:Arkadiusz Jadczyk 3225:Erwin Schrödinger 3024:Origins of affair 2240: 1759:assume good faith 299:for the policy). 110: 109: 61: 60: 55:current talk page 22:(Redirected from 5124: 4930:very, very, very 4728:sorry, in French 4634: 4349:do you remember 4140: 4069: 3763: 3652: 3123: 2967:"Collective" ban 2219: 1822:Motl's statement 1696:Motl's statement 1166:Grichka Bogdanov 1045:Grigori Perelman 990:To Mr Bogdanov: 853: 606: 312: 305:Best regards, -- 88: 63: 62: 40: 39: 33: 27: 5132: 5131: 5127: 5126: 5125: 5123: 5122: 5121: 4956: 4676: 4629: 4522: 4471: 4441: 4370: 4337: 4321: 4290:Billing Contact 4181: 4135: 4064: 3994:Bogdanov Affair 3990:Bogdanov Affair 3758: 3734: 3715:217.136.253.167 3643: 3439:Bogdanov Affair 3423:Bogdanov Affair 3359: 3118: 3099: 3020: 2969: 2950:Bogdanov Affair 2785:anonymous proxy 2671:believe this. 2511:"How long? ... 2379: 2101:Georges Charpak 1979: 1905: 1656: 1632:footnote fodder 1614: 1405: 1395: 1391: 1376:CatherineV: --> 1321: 1299: 1297:Massive Edit... 1183:seem relevant. 1124: 978: 914: 848: 685:Dear Ze miguel 629: 601: 520: 500: 332: 307: 287: 115: 84: 37: 29: 28: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5130: 5128: 5120: 5119: 5118: 5117: 5104: 5103: 5102: 5101: 5073: 5072: 5071: 5070: 5053: 5052: 5051: 5050: 5018: 5017: 5016: 5015: 4990: 4989: 4988: 4987: 4955: 4952: 4951: 4950: 4949: 4948: 4947: 4946: 4945: 4944: 4919: 4918: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4914: 4900: 4899: 4898: 4897: 4878: 4877: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4873: 4858: 4857: 4856: 4855: 4848: 4847: 4842: 4841: 4840: 4839: 4833: 4832: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4823: 4814: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4804: 4803: 4795: 4794: 4793: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4782: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4772: 4771: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4747: 4741: 4740: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4731: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4709: 4708: 4693: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4675: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4568: 4554:Final decision 4547: 4546: 4537: 4521: 4518: 4500: 4499: 4470: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4440: 4437: 4369: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4336: 4333: 4320: 4317: 4307: 4306: 4303: 4300: 4297: 4294: 4291: 4287: 4286: 4283: 4280: 4277: 4274: 4271: 4267: 4266: 4263: 4260: 4257: 4254: 4251: 4247: 4246: 4243: 4239: 4238: 4235: 4231: 4230: 4226: 4225: 4222: 4218: 4217: 4214: 4201: 4200: 4180: 4177: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4107: 4104: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4044: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4017: 3779: 3778: 3736:For example : 3733: 3730: 3710: 3709: 3704: 3703: 3699: 3698: 3693: 3692: 3687: 3686: 3655:The preceding 3642: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506:factualy true. 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3474: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3457: 3456: 3448: 3445: 3442: 3435: 3426: 3417: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3407: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3375: 3358: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3215:th-phys.edu.hk 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3190: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3139: 3138: 3098: 3091: 3089: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3041: 3039: 3019: 3016: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 2968: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2937: 2936: 2927: 2924: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2899: 2888: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2764:Alain Riazuelo 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2748:202.153.116.54 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2691: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2608: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2542: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2378: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2277: 2272:borrowed from 2266: 2265: 2251: 2250: 2222:The preceding 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2191: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2135: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2000: 1999: 1978: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1936: 1935: 1924: 1904: 1903:Recent reverts 1901: 1878: 1777: 1775: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1655: 1652: 1650: 1640: 1639: 1624: 1613: 1610: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1509: 1507: 1506: 1482: 1479: 1474: 1470: 1469: 1464: 1462: 1457: 1455: 1447: 1446: 1440: 1434: 1428: 1420: 1419: 1413: 1412: 1409: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1392: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1364: 1363: 1355: 1352: 1349: 1342: 1320: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1298: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1201: 1200: 1176: 1175: 1157: 1148: 1136: 1123: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 977: 974: 970: 969: 961: 913: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 730: 728: 727: 726: 725: 707: 683: 682: 671: 670: 628: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 593: 592: 582: 581: 580: 579: 567: 566: 556: 555: 536: 534: 533: 519: 516: 499: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 480: 479: 469: 468: 464: 463: 458: 457: 453: 452: 447: 446: 441: 426: 355: 354: 353: 352: 333: 331: 328: 286: 283: 282: 281: 280: 279: 267: 266: 262: 261: 256: 255: 254: 253: 252: 251: 250: 249: 248: 247: 234: 233: 232: 231: 230: 229: 221: 220: 219: 218: 209: 208: 207: 206: 197: 196: 185: 184: 183: 182: 171: 170: 164: 162: 161: 153: 152: 151: 150: 142: 141: 140: 139: 131: 130: 129: 128: 120: 119: 114: 111: 108: 107: 102: 99: 94: 89: 82: 77: 72: 69: 59: 58: 41: 30: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5129: 5116: 5113: 5108: 5107: 5106: 5105: 5098: 5094: 5090: 5086: 5082: 5077: 5076: 5075: 5074: 5067: 5062: 5057: 5056: 5055: 5054: 5047: 5043: 5039: 5034: 5030: 5026: 5022: 5021: 5020: 5019: 5012: 5008: 5004: 4999: 4994: 4993: 4992: 4991: 4984: 4979: 4978: 4977: 4976: 4975: 4971: 4969: 4966: 4962: 4953: 4943: 4940: 4935: 4931: 4927: 4926: 4925: 4924: 4923: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4913: 4910: 4906: 4905: 4904: 4903: 4902: 4901: 4896: 4893: 4890: 4889: 4888: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4882: 4871: 4867: 4864: 4863: 4862: 4861: 4860: 4859: 4852: 4851: 4850: 4849: 4844: 4843: 4837: 4836: 4835: 4834: 4830: 4829: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4816: 4815: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4801: 4797: 4796: 4788: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4783: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4773: 4769: 4765: 4764: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4751: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4742: 4738: 4737: 4729: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4720: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4706: 4702: 4698: 4695: 4694: 4686: 4685: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4673: 4667: 4664: 4660: 4656: 4652: 4651: 4650: 4649: 4642: 4639: 4635: 4633: 4626: 4622: 4621: 4620: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4608: 4605: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4587: 4584: 4581: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4572: 4567: 4564: 4559: 4555: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4545: 4542: 4538: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4528: 4519: 4517: 4516: 4513: 4509: 4505: 4498: 4494: 4490: 4486: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4476: 4468: 4464: 4461: 4457: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4447: 4438: 4436: 4435: 4432: 4429:narcissist.) 4426: 4425: 4421: 4420: 4416: 4415: 4411: 4410: 4406: 4405: 4400: 4399: 4394: 4393: 4388: 4387: 4381: 4380: 4375: 4363: 4360: 4356: 4352: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4342: 4334: 4332: 4331: 4328: 4324: 4318: 4316: 4313: 4311: 4304: 4301: 4298: 4295: 4292: 4289: 4288: 4284: 4281: 4278: 4275: 4272: 4269: 4268: 4264: 4261: 4258: 4255: 4252: 4249: 4248: 4244: 4241: 4240: 4236: 4233: 4232: 4228: 4227: 4223: 4220: 4219: 4215: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4207: 4205: 4199: 4198: 4195: 4189: 4188: 4187: 4185: 4178: 4176: 4175: 4172: 4171:Metaeducation 4154: 4151: 4148: 4145: 4141: 4139: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4108: 4105: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4083: 4080: 4077: 4074: 4070: 4068: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4045: 4042: 4038: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4016: 4013: 4009: 4006: 4003: 3999: 3995: 3991: 3987: 3984: 3981: 3977: 3973: 3970: 3967: 3963: 3959: 3955: 3952: 3949: 3945: 3941: 3938: 3935: 3931: 3930:82.123.57.232 3927: 3924: 3921: 3917: 3916:82.123.46.149 3913: 3910: 3907: 3903: 3899: 3896: 3893: 3889: 3885: 3882: 3879: 3875: 3874:82.123.187.53 3871: 3868: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3854: 3851: 3847: 3843: 3840: 3837: 3833: 3832:ProfesseurYIN 3829: 3826: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3812: 3809: 3805: 3801: 3797: 3794: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3777: 3774: 3771: 3768: 3764: 3762: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3749: 3746: 3743: 3739: 3731: 3729: 3728: 3725: 3720: 3719: 3716: 3706: 3705: 3701: 3700: 3695: 3694: 3689: 3688: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3678: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3660: 3658: 3650: 3647: 3640: 3634: 3631: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3558: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3475: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3455: 3452: 3449: 3446: 3443: 3440: 3436: 3434: 3431: 3427: 3424: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3408: 3405: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3382: 3379: 3376: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3365: 3356: 3344: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3315: 3312: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3291: 3287: 3285: 3282: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3231: 3229: 3226: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3191: 3188: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3169: 3166: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3151: 3148: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3137: 3134: 3131: 3128: 3124: 3122: 3115: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3104: 3096: 3090: 3079: 3076: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3058: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3040: 3037: 3036: 3033: 3027: 3025: 3015: 3012: 3000: 2997: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2966: 2958: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2935: 2932: 2928: 2925: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2908: 2905: 2900: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2874: 2871: 2867: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2834: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2802: 2797: 2794:. What wrote 2793: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2768: 2765: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2749: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2725: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2677: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2624: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2594: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2549: 2546: 2543: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2521: 2518: 2514: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2495: 2492: 2487: 2482: 2478: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2441: 2438: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2402: 2399: 2398:212.180.21.18 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388:204.13.153.34 2384: 2376: 2369: 2365: 2362: 2358: 2357: 2352: 2349: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2335: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2321: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2307: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2293: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2275: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2264: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2252: 2248: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2227: 2225: 2216: 2213: 2198: 2195: 2192: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2167: 2164: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2142: 2139: 2136: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2061: 2058: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2042: 2039: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2025: 2022: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1998: 1995: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1985: 1976: 1970: 1967: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1945: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1934: 1931: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1922: 1921: 1918: 1913: 1909: 1902: 1900: 1897: 1896: 1893: 1888: 1885: 1882: 1879: 1876: 1873: 1870: 1865: 1863: 1858: 1855: 1850: 1847: 1842: 1841: 1836: 1833: 1828: 1824: 1823: 1818: 1814: 1813: 1808: 1806: 1800: 1799: 1794: 1790: 1789: 1784: 1781: 1776: 1767: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1747: 1744: 1739: 1737: 1732: 1729: 1724: 1721: 1716: 1715: 1710: 1707: 1702: 1698: 1697: 1692: 1688: 1687: 1682: 1678: 1677: 1672: 1668: 1667: 1662: 1659: 1653: 1651: 1648: 1647: 1644: 1638: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1623: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1611: 1609: 1608: 1605: 1600: 1597: 1594: 1591: 1586: 1583: 1580: 1576: 1574: 1570: 1568: 1564: 1562: 1558: 1556: 1552: 1549: 1545: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1530: 1528: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1505: 1502: 1498: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1483: 1480: 1478: 1475: 1472: 1471: 1468: 1465: 1463: 1461: 1458: 1456: 1453: 1449: 1448: 1445: 1441: 1439: 1435: 1433: 1429: 1426: 1422: 1421: 1418: 1415: 1414: 1410: 1407: 1406: 1397: 1396: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1370: 1366: 1365: 1362: 1359: 1356: 1353: 1350: 1347: 1343: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1318: 1314: 1311: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1303: 1296: 1284: 1281: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1256: 1253: 1249: 1248: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1231: 1228: 1227:Metaeducation 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1213: 1210: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1199: 1196: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1186: 1185:Metaeducation 1182: 1173: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1158: 1154: 1153:publications. 1149: 1146: 1142: 1137: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1129: 1121: 1107: 1104: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1078: 1075: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1057: 1052: 1050: 1046: 1041: 1039: 1024: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 988: 985: 981: 975: 973: 968: 965: 962: 958: 957: 956: 953: 950: 947: 944: 941: 937: 934: 931: 928: 925: 921: 917: 911: 896: 893: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 867: 864: 861: 858: 854: 852: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 826: 823: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 804: 801: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 757: 754: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 724: 721: 717: 716: 715: 712: 708: 704: 703: 702: 701: 698: 693: 690: 686: 681: 678: 673: 672: 669: 666: 661: 660: 659: 658: 655: 650: 646: 643: 640: 637: 633: 626: 620: 617: 614: 611: 607: 605: 597: 596: 595: 594: 591: 588: 584: 583: 578: 575: 571: 570: 569: 568: 565: 562: 558: 557: 554: 551: 547: 546: 545: 543: 540: 532: 529: 525: 524: 523: 517: 515: 514: 511: 507: 505: 497: 491: 488: 484: 483: 482: 481: 478: 475: 471: 470: 466: 465: 460: 459: 455: 454: 449: 448: 444: 443: 442: 439: 436: 433: 429: 424: 421: 418: 414: 410: 406: 402: 401: 396: 392: 390: 384: 381: 377: 374: 369: 368: 365: 359: 351: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 339: 336: 329: 327: 326: 323: 320: 317: 313: 311: 303: 300: 298: 293: 292: 284: 278: 275: 271: 270: 269: 268: 264: 263: 258: 257: 245: 244: 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 237: 236: 235: 227: 226: 225: 224: 223: 222: 217: 213: 212: 211: 210: 205: 201: 200: 199: 198: 195: 191: 187: 186: 179: 175: 174: 173: 172: 167: 166: 165: 159: 155: 154: 149: 146: 145: 144: 143: 138: 135: 134: 133: 132: 127: 124: 123: 122: 121: 117: 116: 112: 106: 103: 100: 98: 95: 93: 90: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 73: 70: 68: 65: 64: 56: 52: 48: 47: 42: 35: 34: 25: 19: 5096: 5092: 5088: 5085:deal with it 5084: 5080: 5065: 5060: 5045: 5041: 5037: 5032: 5028: 5024: 5010: 5006: 5002: 4997: 4982: 4972: 4957: 4934:evolutionary 4933: 4929: 4879: 4799: 4715:information. 4704: 4701:Fields medal 4697:Alain Connes 4677: 4631: 4579: 4557: 4553: 4523: 4501: 4472: 4442: 4427: 4423: 4422: 4418: 4417: 4413: 4412: 4408: 4407: 4402: 4401: 4396: 4395: 4390: 4389: 4384: 4382: 4377: 4371: 4338: 4325: 4322: 4314: 4308: 4293:Name: ILINKA 4273:Name: ILINKA 4253:Name: ILINKA 4208: 4202: 4190: 4182: 4167: 4137: 4066: 4040: 4036: 4032: 4028: 4004: 3982: 3968: 3957: 3950: 3936: 3922: 3908: 3894: 3880: 3866: 3852: 3838: 3824: 3810: 3799: 3792: 3760: 3750: 3747: 3735: 3721: 3711: 3654: 3651: 3648: 3644: 3421:12 edits to 3416: 3360: 3278: 3222: 3214: 3210: 3120: 3100: 3094: 3088: 3049: 3038: 3028: 3023: 3021: 3013: 3009: 2981: 2977: 2970: 2917: 2887: 2865: 2847: 2825: 2809: 2738: 2690: 2668: 2620: 2607: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2512: 2485: 2480: 2459: 2418: 2417:instead of 2414: 2382: 2380: 2367: 2355: 2354: 2347: 2341:80.11.18.171 2333: 2319: 2311:), twice as 2305: 2297:), twice as 2291: 2285:Marc Perroud 2283:. twice as 2281:while banned 2280: 2255: 2246: 2221: 2217: 2214: 2211: 2194:Marc Perroud 2138:Marc Perroud 2021:Marc Perroud 1984:Marc Perroud 1980: 1943: 1923: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1898: 1889: 1886: 1883: 1880: 1877: 1874: 1868: 1866: 1862:Minor change 1861: 1859: 1853: 1851: 1845: 1843: 1838: 1837: 1832:Minor change 1831: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1809: 1804: 1801: 1797: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1785: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1748: 1742: 1740: 1736:Minor change 1735: 1733: 1727: 1725: 1719: 1717: 1712: 1711: 1706:Minor change 1705: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1663: 1660: 1657: 1649: 1641: 1637:statistics). 1635: 1631: 1630:that it was 1615: 1601: 1598: 1595: 1589: 1587: 1584: 1581: 1577: 1572: 1571: 1566: 1565: 1560: 1559: 1554: 1553: 1550: 1546: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1531: 1526: 1524: 1508: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1484: 1476: 1466: 1459: 1443: 1437: 1431: 1424: 1416: 1381: 1377: 1344: 1322: 1300: 1177: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1160: 1151: 1125: 1053: 1042: 1037: 1035: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 989: 986: 982: 979: 971: 954: 951: 948: 945: 942: 938: 935: 932: 929: 926: 922: 918: 915: 850: 729: 694: 691: 687: 684: 651: 647: 644: 641: 638: 634: 630: 603: 535: 521: 508: 503: 501: 440: 437: 434: 430: 425: 422: 419: 415: 411: 407: 403: 399: 397: 393: 388: 385: 382: 378: 372: 370: 363: 361: 360: 356: 341: 340: 337: 334: 309: 304: 301: 294: 290: 288: 214: 202: 189: 188:Here is the 177: 163: 157: 85: 50: 44: 4965:194.2.44.95 4770:University. 4583:Fred Bauder 4556:superceded 4520:Coming back 4446:Fred Bauder 4351:Cold fusion 3724:Doublestein 3630:Doublestein 3364:Doublestein 2623:Fred Bauder 2541:teenagers ! 2472:Bible Codes 2419:necesseraly 2415:necesseraly 2383:necesseraly 2325:), once as 2229:81.185.34.8 2113:hardware.fr 2097:Nobel prize 1881:Mr Igor B. 1807:about us). 1622:"Followups" 1384:sentences : 395:maintain. 169:principle." 43:This is an 5046:meaningful 4485:khaosworks 4475:J.Bogdanov 3998:Laurence67 3888:Laurence67 3860:CatherineV 3590:confusion. 3473:Bourgogne. 3357:Cosmology? 3290:two papers 2099:recipient 1643:CatherineV 1491:rigorously 1430:Origial : 1358:CatherineV 980:Dear all, 964:Laurence67 785:sequence!! 587:CatherineV 574:CatherineV 105:Archive 10 5005:and what 4909:Ze miguel 4881:Ze miguel 4604:Ze miguel 4527:Ze miguel 4341:Adam Paul 3976:Ze miguel 3786:Ze miguel 3751:Laurence 3662:Ahahaha ! 3288:In 2004, 3163:edit it. 3014:Laurence 2796:Laurent_s 2513:Not long. 2464:Laurent_s 2247:for weeks 1812:CQG email 1686:CQG email 1487:therefore 1399:Schreiber 1170:Bogdanoff 1056:Ze miguel 822:Ze miguel 720:Ze miguel 677:Ze miguel 665:Ze miguel 510:Ze miguel 498:Archive 5 487:Ze miguel 97:Archive 8 92:Archive 7 86:Archive 6 80:Archive 5 75:Archive 4 67:Archive 1 5100:anyway.) 4778:salient. 4768:Sorbonne 4632:Turnbull 4630:Nicholas 4625:WP:BEANS 4508:Oral sex 4493:contribs 4327:Erratum3 4302:Fax No.: 4282:Fax No.: 4262:Fax No.: 4147:(e-mail) 4138:Turnbull 4136:Nicholas 4109:Laurence 4076:(e-mail) 4067:Turnbull 4065:Nicholas 4046:Laurence 4043:article. 4008:contribs 3986:contribs 3972:contribs 3954:contribs 3940:contribs 3926:contribs 3912:contribs 3898:contribs 3884:contribs 3870:contribs 3856:contribs 3842:contribs 3828:contribs 3814:contribs 3798:) and i 3796:contribs 3770:(e-mail) 3761:Turnbull 3759:Nicholas 3670:contribs 3657:unsigned 3536:balance. 3130:(e-mail) 3121:Turnbull 3119:Nicholas 2866:cleverly 2642:similar. 2545:Corector 2351:contribs 2337:contribs 2323:contribs 2309:contribs 2295:contribs 2237:contribs 2224:unsigned 2218:Luis A. 2009:before ? 1869:addition 1805:complain 1743:addition 1346:comments 860:(e-mail) 851:Turnbull 849:Nicholas 613:(e-mail) 604:Turnbull 602:Nicholas 319:(e-mail) 310:Turnbull 308:Nicholas 5093:talking 5069:public. 4998:radical 4659:anthrax 4536:words). 4504:Obesity 4150:(cabal) 4079:(cabal) 3944:Luis A. 3846:Igor B. 3773:(cabal) 3697:thesis. 3674:Pjacobi 3570:reader. 3451:Pjacobi 3147:Pjacobi 3133:(cabal) 2954:Pjacobi 2789:Alain_r 2468:Alain_r 2299:Solar S 2163:Pjacobi 2057:Pjacobi 1994:Pjacobi 1930:Luis A. 1892:Luis A. 1846:Charpak 1720:Charpak 1604:Luis A. 1002:that's 863:(cabal) 697:Luis A. 654:Luis A. 616:(cabal) 322:(cabal) 46:archive 5007:worked 4638:(talk) 4353:? or 4144:(talk) 4073:(talk) 4037:nobody 3902:EE Guy 3767:(talk) 3708:two... 3557:insult 3395:Point. 3127:(talk) 3075:Huldra 2327:Gannon 2313:Baumer 2111:) and 1628:agreed 1495:cannot 1310:EE Guy 1252:EE Guy 1145:SCIgen 1103:EE Guy 1049:hubris 857:(talk) 800:EE Guy 739:grief! 610:(talk) 550:EE Guy 528:EE Guy 474:EE Guy 316:(talk) 297:WP:3RR 274:EE Guy 190:entire 5112:r b-j 5097:doing 5081:doing 5042:novel 5003:truth 4939:r b-j 4892:r b-j 4663:r b-j 4563:r b-j 4469:Hello 4460:r b-j 4431:r b-j 4372:from 4359:r b-j 4012:r b-j 3691:why). 3463:edit. 3340:r b-j 3311:r b-j 3103:r b-j 3054:r b-j 3032:r b-j 2996:r b-j 2870:r b-j 2830:r b-j 2721:r b-j 2673:r b-j 2590:r b-j 2517:r b-j 2491:r b-j 2437:r b-j 2361:r b-j 2260:r b-j 1966:r b-j 1875:Igor 1763:r b-j 1749:Igor 1590:claim 1333:r b-j 1209:r b-j 1074:r b-j 1020:r b-j 960:give. 955:Igor 438:Igor 423:Igor 373:never 16:< 5066:many 5038:many 4983:many 4870:this 4655:9/11 4541:Rama 4506:and 4489:talk 4194:Rama 4041:this 4029:this 4002:talk 3980:talk 3966:talk 3948:talk 3934:talk 3920:talk 3906:talk 3892:talk 3878:talk 3864:talk 3850:talk 3836:talk 3822:talk 3808:talk 3790:talk 3666:talk 3267:2003 3221:. 3165:Rama 3050:does 2982:also 2978:only 2952:. -- 2948:and 2931:Rama 2904:Rama 2669:ever 2574:much 2486:real 2345:talk 2331:talk 2317:talk 2303:talk 2289:talk 2233:talk 2107:and 2038:Rama 1944:ahem 1917:Rama 1327:and 1280:Rama 1195:Rama 1168:(or 1164:and 1162:Igor 1147:...) 1141:hoax 1012:real 1008:real 892:Rama 711:Rama 561:Rama 364:love 260:Wow. 178:love 5033:had 5025:ABD 4033:all 3962:Rbj 3960:" " 3942:), 3928:), 3914:), 3900:), 3886:). 3872:), 3858:), 3844:), 3830:), 3818:XAL 3816:), 3804:YBM 3800:are 3738:rbj 3095:why 2974:Rbj 2828:? 2801:YBM 2586:you 2582:you 2578:you 2481:are 2460:one 1844:6. 1830:5. 1786:1. 1718:6. 1704:5. 1664:1. 1573:(4) 1567:(3) 1561:(2) 1555:(1) 1501:YBM 1382:two 1378:one 1369:YBM 1016:Dr. 1004:Dr. 158:you 5011:if 4970:) 4636:| 4495:) 4491:• 4376:: 4142:| 4071:| 3956:) 3765:| 3672:) 3668:• 3248:to 3145:-- 3125:| 2396:-- 2276:!) 2258:" 2235:• 1890:-- 1867:9 1860:8. 1852:7. 1820:4. 1810:3. 1741:9 1734:8. 1726:7. 1694:4. 1684:3. 1602:-- 1499:-- 1308:-- 1250:-- 1172:) 1126:I 855:| 798:-- 695:-- 652:-- 608:| 599:-- 548:-- 526:-- 472:-- 314:| 272:-- 101:→ 71:← 5029:I 4487:( 4005:· 4000:( 3983:· 3978:( 3969:· 3964:( 3951:· 3946:( 3937:· 3932:( 3923:· 3918:( 3909:· 3904:( 3895:· 3890:( 3881:· 3876:( 3867:· 3862:( 3853:· 3848:( 3839:· 3834:( 3825:· 3820:( 3811:· 3806:( 3793:· 3788:( 3679:. 3664:( 3653:— 2370:) 2366:( 2348:· 2343:( 2334:· 2329:( 2320:· 2315:( 2306:· 2301:( 2292:· 2287:( 2231:( 2220:— 2109:2 2105:1 1796:2 1674:2 1542:4 1538:3 1534:2 1527:1 1454:) 1348:. 57:. 26:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index