Good idea! I herewith demand that all members stop talking about eigenvalues and eigenvectors all the time! Banned are also 'ansatz', 'dreck', the use of ##\mathbb{Z}##, or ##K## for fields. This list will occasionally be updated.caz said:Now I have to report both of you for not posting in English
How about banning V and V4 for the Group that isn't C4/Z4 too?fresh_42 said:
As a physicist, I would be more worried about the dreibein.Vanadium 50 said:
Lo siento. (oops, sorry for stepping on V50's toes there...)caz said:Now I have to report both of you for not posting in English
There are people who when they do not get the answer they like, go and create other threads with slightly different questions. It is really annoying when one tries to answer one of these threads and it starts to go off the rails because they are looking not for an answer, but validation.berkeman said:
I check poster histories all the time, but that's because of my Mentor tendencies. But if you ever suspect something is fishy in a post or thread, please click the Report link on the post sooner rather than later. We usually can check out the thread pretty quickly when it's reported to us. Thanks.caz said:
Could we please add gedankenexperiment to the list? Every time I see it I think someone is being thanked for an experiment.fresh_42 said:
...or someone just sneezed in the lab?phinds said:
No, the German for "thanks" is danke, so gedankenexperiment should mean "thanks for the experiment"jtbell said:
And it's even worse: one cannot afford to make a spelling error, since Gedenkenexperiment would mean an experiment about memorializing!phinds said:
Fixed it for you.phinds said:
Gesundheit simply means health. We do not see a necessity to bother God with it.phinds said:
Yeah, but it still sounds like a sneeze.fresh_42 said:
It is pronounced: guehsoonedhite.phinds said:
@phindsfresh_42 said:
I think the issue was, that the first two questions never have been answered, and nobody fully understood post number one. What does it mean to check on a person, and what for?pinball1970 said:
So?caz said:
In the new or in the old thread. Any links?caz said:
Q1. I mean to look at some of their previous posts to see if they are worth the effort.fresh_42 said:
I elucidated reasons why synth drums should not have been pushed forward onto the musical community just because technology allowed.fresh_42 said:
That's a waste of time 90% of the time and since no one can tell WHICH 90% I think most of us just answer the question and move on.caz said:
Once upon a time; have since learned to apply the ancient adage, "Do NOT feed the trolls."caz said:
... especially since He/She sneezes down upon us quite frequently.fresh_42 said:
Some opening questions can be suspicious enough to induce a preventive history check, but it's really rare. In general, if somebody wants to turn a new leaf, then I'm OK with it.caz said:
It is not necessary to check a person's post history before responding to their thread. However, it can provide valuable context and help you understand their perspective better.
Checking a person's post history can help you avoid repeating previous discussions or arguments, and can also give you a better understanding of their beliefs and opinions.
One potential drawback is that you may make assumptions about the person based on their previous posts, which may not be accurate or fair. It is important to approach each thread with an open mind.
This is a personal preference and there is no set rule. Some people may choose to only look at recent posts, while others may want to get a broader understanding by looking at their entire post history.
It depends on the context and how the information is used. If you are using their post history to gain a better understanding of their perspective, it is not necessarily invasive. However, if you are using it to attack or discredit the person, it can be considered disrespectful.