lobaz wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:07 pm
Come on, guys. Both of you are very valuable members of the forum.
If I got a dollar each time I see something I consider silly, I'd be a millionaire.
The point is that if you see something silly, you should have the freedom to say that it's silly without being attacked by foul language, accusations, incorrect statements, name-calling and outright false statements such as that "this troll has been booted off all holography forums ", which is not true. No one, no one, should feel intimidated for speaking out about silly statements. No one, no one, should be afraid of being silenced for opposing the "standard narrative" (I think you may understand this more than most, Lobaz). All my life I've stood out for truth, facts that can be proven or referenced, and pointed out misinformation and disinformation. If you make a statement, you need to justify the statement with references, a theoretical justification or experimental data. Hess hates because he's complicit in misinformation, he does not understand the need for checking his statements. For pointing out misinformation, he calls me a "Troll". If Hess, or anyone else, disagrees with me, calling me names and attacking me is no more than many political regimes have practiced. I'm open to debate, not hatred.
Bob Hess hates because I think Rallison is wrong about certain statements he made. It's provable that he was wrong. But, the "standard narrative" of display holographers is that Rallison has attained a god-like status, he cannot- I stress, Cannot - be wrong about anything. Hess has accused me of "dragging his name through the mud". if a disagreement about a published statement is seen as an "attack" against the author, almost all - all - of literary criticism will be under shroud of fear because of people like Hess. Under the "Hess rule", you cannot attack or criticise any published work that Hess "believes in" without a blistering attack made with foul language. I didn't know Rallison, I met him only for a few minutes, but, his published statements are not accurate - and it can be proved. But, Hess attacks, demeans, makes hateful comments with foul language because I point out that his "god" is wrong. No one, no one, should be silenced with foul language for an opinion. This is the basis of Free Speech - something Hess does not seem to like.
Another bone of contention is that I do not agree that all these new 3D display systems are "not holograms" (Oh! How they hate it when I ask a simple question: why not). Again, a point of view can be debated, but not attacked. My feeling is that the word has changed, like all words change over time. Only the old cannot accept change.
I don't think it will end here. I think Hess will continue with foul language. But, as far as I'm concerned, as long as I'm able, I'll try to help people with technical knowledge, despite Hess, I'll try to help people overcome technical issues and I'll explain technical concepts as far as I'm able. The question is, under the blistering attack by Hess, can I continue here. This is a question for John.
If John decides to ban me, it's his decision. But, I hope that decision is made taking all the facts of the situation at hand. Hess hates, it's as simple as that. He'll once more come out with a string of accusations about "troll", about how I've been "banned" (not true), and more nasty commentaries. If we allow hateful opinions to deny and suppress free speech - the ability to allow disagreement - then it's the end of an era I grew up trying to prevent, as a physicist and as a somewhat ineffectual philosopher.