Great Time.com article. "Larry King and the Paranormal

[SteveGrenard]

So Edolph, have you learned anything today about how to spell Schrödinger?


Edolph wrote: Nien. Mine nomen ist Hilter, ja. No umlote things on my name.....

BTW your ignorance know's no bounds, it is umlaut, not umlote things ... the two dots, that is.

 

[CFLarsen]

Erwin Schrödinger -- with those two dots over the "o."

Umlaut.

Your ignorance knows no boundaries, Steve.

 

[Pyrrho]

Dr. Schwartz, James Randi, and other "public persons" have a harder time proving libel than "private persons". You become a "public person", you might as well accept the lumps along with the glory.

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072492171/student_view0/chapter5/chapter_overview.html

Here's handy checklist:

http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/libelfrm.htm

Might be useful to use before publishing. Also useful before accusing someone else of libel.

I'd be very surprised if anything in these threads is actionable.

 

[SteveGrenard]

I notice that in the first reference this applied to legal action against a publication or publisher of libel but did not hold accountable another individual or person who uttered the allegedly libelous or slanderous statement. Presumably persons as well as pubications are liable for libel.

The second document was also interesting. Answering the questions as best as possible, even those where the statement is said to be an opinion by the alleged libeler, in the weight of other factors, makes the utterance actionable. This is a "test" definitely worth carrying out before one utters anything possibly or potentially libelous.

I entered Claus' recent statement that "Your ignorance knows no bounds, Steve" -- which clearly indicates that Claus says I am ignorant, ignorant beyond all bounds and properly identifies me by name and found that I
have a case against Claus which he could best defend only by having I.Q. test scores demonstrating my true ignorance and the bounds to which it goes. In reality, I properly described a grammatical device in the German language as two dots over the letter O which, since I did not name (umlaut) caused Claus to state I am ignorant beyond all bounds. On the other hand, in a parody of that, I stated that someone named Edolph (who claimed to be Hitler in a previous post) was ignorant beyond all bounds because he didn't know how to spell umlaut. I could also suggest ignorance on the part of someone named Corey for not knowing the proper spelling of Erwin Schrödinger's last name and dissing me for spelling it wrong when in fact the correction itself was in error.

The weight itself of being a public or quasi public person does not seem sufficient to entirely relieve the burden Pyrrho. Authors can be criticized for what they write but they cannot be accused of a criminal act, to wit, that of comitting fraud: e.g. of stealing $20.00 from Garette because Garrette may've bought his book.

In the case of Schwartz we are talking about a person who works as a university researcher. I am afraid some of the other considerations in the Univ of Texas test overtake the exemption for public persons in this case.

 

[CFLarsen]

Whoa...you got me off ignore, too?? Clancie's taken me off ignore and now you.

Aww, that's so sweet! Must be that new cologne of mine...

I notice that in the first reference this applied to legal action against a publication or publisher of libel but did not hold accountable another individual or person who uttered the allegedly libelous or slanderous statement. Presumably persons as well as pubications are liable for libel.

The second document was also interesting. Answering the questions as best as possible, even those where the statement is said to be an opinion by the alleged libeler, in the weight of other factors, makes the utterance actionable. This is a "test" definitely worth carrying out before one utters anything possibly or potentially libelous.

I entered Claus' recent statement that "Your ignorance knows no bounds, Steve" -- which clearly indicates that Claus says I am ignorant, ignorant beyond all bounds and properly identifies me by name and found that I
have a case against Claus which he could best defend only by having I.Q. test scores demonstrating my true ignorance and the bounds to which it goes. In reality, I properly described a grammatical device in the German language as two dots over the letter O which, since I did not name (umlaut) caused Claus to state I am ignorant beyond all bounds. On the other hand, in a parody of that, I stated that someone named Edolph (who claimed to be Hitler in a previous post) was ignorant beyond all bounds because he didn't know how to spell umlaut. I could also suggest ignorance on the part of someone named Corey for not knowing the proper spelling of Erwin Schrödinger's last name and dissing me for spelling it wrong when in fact the correction itself was in error.

Steve, I.Q. tests are not very suitable to show how ignorant people are. You can be intelligent and still be ignorant of things.

E.g. what electrical resistance is measured in.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Actually you are not off ignore Claus. I simply hit the option to let me read your post because I was looking for a recent example of some utterance that was potentially libelous and was interested in seeing if you were kind enough to provide it. You were, as you were in your follow-up regarding your lack of knowledge regarding skin's resistance, the resistance of the skin to the test passage of a current of electricity measured in millionths of a volt (microvolts), not ohms. The resistance aka impedance derived from that is obtained by an impedance meter which registers the impedance (which is what it is called in human phsyiology which you may not also know) in units called kilo-ohms. Therefore, like Corey's failed attempt to correct the spelling of Schrödinger's name, your persistent reference to my alleged misunderstanding of the impedance of the skin is in fact based on your own lack of knowledge on this highly specific procedure or some irrelevant remarks made by electric shop hobby boys. I tried to educate you and them by pointing you to web resources on what I was talking about but you weren't interested then and are not educated on this yet or you would have stopped harping on it. Since it is a subject I work with every day and have done so successfully and competently for 30+ years, for a salary, you are also libeling me by falsely casting doubt on my understanding of a subject which you yourself have never come anywhere near much less understand. I, and staff under my direct supervision, perform such procedures on real people on a daily basis. I am not worried because both the people I work with and for know that I am fully conversant with what's involved and why.

If you had said I was ignorant of the German language or its grammar, you would be correct. But you did not say this. You used the example of that ignorance, to which I plead guilty, to assert I am ignorant "beyond all bounds." You set me adrift on a limitless sea of ignorance; to defend your claim you would need to test me to see if that were true or a libelous slander.

I am waiting now patiently for real German language experts to explain what the umlaut over the "o" in Schrödinger's name signifies in terms of its English iteration.

Claus, you are a minor annoyance who is back on ignore.

 

[Jeff Corey]

E.g. what electrical resistance is measured in.

Ohmlauts?

 

[CFLarsen]

Actually you are not off ignore Claus.

Which is why you address my posts. OK, Steve.

I simply hit the option to let me read your post because I was looking for a recent example of some utterance that was potentially libelous and was interested in seeing if you were kind enough to provide it. You were, as you were in your follow-up regarding your lack of knowledge regarding skin's resistance, the resistance of the skin to the test passage of a current of electricity measured in millionths of a volt (microvolts), not ohms. The resistance aka impedance derived from that is obtained by an impedance meter which registers the impedance (which is what it is called in human phsyiology which you may not also know) in units called kilo-ohms.

Resistance is measured not in volts (be it ever so small), it is measured in Ohm. Get that through your thick skull, Steve.

Therefore, like Corey's failed attempt to correct the spelling of Schrödinger's name

Ah, now you got it right. Finally.

Jeff wasn't incorrect, you can write "ö" as "oe". A shortcut, if you like. You cannot, however, write "ö" as "o", like you did.

your persistent reference to my alleged misunderstanding of the impedance of the skin is in fact based on your own lack of knowledge on this highly specific procedure or some irrelevant remarks made by electric shop hobby boys. I tried to educate you and them by pointing you to web resources on what I was talking about but you weren't interested then and are not educated on this yet or you would have stopped harping on it. Since it is a subject I work with every day and have done so successfully and competently for 30+ years, for a salary, you are also libeling me by falsely casting doubt on my understanding of a subject which you yourself have never come anywhere near much less understand. I, and staff under my direct supervision, perform such procedures on real people on a daily basis. I am not worried because both the people I work with and for know that I am fully conversant with what's involved and why.

Fine. I have "libelled" you. Now, I await the lawsuit.

If you had said I was ignorant of the German language or its grammar, you would be correct. But you did not say this. You used the example of that ignorance, to which I plead guilty, to assert I am ignorant "beyond all bounds." You set me adrift on a limitless sea of ignorance; to defend your claim you would need to test me to see if that were true or a libelous slander.

"Or"? I just thought you said I was libeling you?? Please make up your mind, Steve. You can't already back out. You have to wait until you have threatened me some more. Gotta follow your routine, you know...

I am waiting now patiently for real German language experts to explain what the umlaut over the "o" in Schrödinger's name signifies in terms of its English iteration.

Why not simply find out for yourself? Isn't that what you always tell people? Try Google, Steve.

Claus, you are a minor annoyance who is back on ignore.

I never was, was I?

 

[CFLarsen]

Ohmlauts?

Quit your daytime job and go work for SNL!

 

[Pyrrho]

The weight itself of being a public or quasi public person does not seem sufficient to entirely relieve the burden Pyrrho. Authors can be criticized for what they write but they cannot be accused of a criminal act, to wit, that of comitting fraud: e.g. of stealing $20.00 from Garette because Garrette may've bought his book.

In the case of Schwartz we are talking about a person who works as a university researcher. I am afraid some of the other considerations in the Univ of Texas test overtake the exemption for public persons in this case.

Well, yes, Garrette can accuse Schwartz of fraud, for he has supported his reasons for doing so, and he has clarified that is is his opinion that Schwartz is a fraud. This is not the same as publishing in a newspaper, magazine, or on a TV or radio show, and his opinions do not seem to be founded in malice.

Schwartz is very much a public person and while there isn't an exemption for public persons as regard libel, they do have to work harder to prove libel. Garrette's opinions about Schwartz are no different from the opinions voiced by many that Randi is a fraud, e.g, the JREF Challenge is fraudulent, and no different from your accusations that Leon Jaroff is a "reprobate and liar". It comes with the territory.

When the accuser is just another yelper on an Internet message board, it is extremely doubtful that their statements would have any effect on the accused's reputation or character. However, if a person were to publish such accusations in a newspaper, book, magazine, on a TV or radio show, or for purposely wide distribution on the Internet, such as on many different Usenet groups or in an email campaign, there'd be a difference, and the accuser's derogatory statements could be considered actionable.

All that said, accurate legal opinions on libel should be obtained from actual practicing lawyers. Following legal advice from the Internet is as dangerous as following Internet medical advice.

 

[thaiboxerken]

the resistance of the skin to the test passage of a current of electricity measured in millionths of a volt (microvolts), not ohms.

This is wrong, volts is the measure of electric potential (voltage), not resistance. Ohms is the proper unit to measure resistance and impedance.

 

[CFLarsen]

However, if a person were to publish such accusations in a newspaper, book, magazine, on a TV or radio show, or for purposely wide distribution on the Internet, such as on many different Usenet groups or in an email campaign, there'd be a difference, and the accuser's derogatory statements could be considered actionable.

You mean, like the anonymous email campaign against Randi and JREF, started by Steve? You are so right.

 

[SteveGrenard]

TBK: This is wrong, volts is the measure of electric potential (voltage), not resistance. Ohms is the proper unit to measure resistance and impedance.


No no TBK, its ohmlauts.....measured in ohmlauts. Get it right.
................................................
In measuring the impedance of the skin in people....the result is obtained in kilo ohms of which one is a thousand ohms. Typical impedance for the skin on the lower legs in an adult is between 10,000 and 20,000 ohms or betweeen 10 and 20 kilo ohms. It is obtained by applying a ground ref electrode on the subject (e.g. on the forehead) and a seeking or exploring electrode on the patch of skin fr which the impedance is being measured. They are plugged into a special imnpedance measuring device. This can be set to push a current through the ground electrode which is then picked up by the seeking electrode which then registers the impedance. Devices used in medicine are have a dialabe (low) test current that is sent.

The impedance, which YES, is measured in kilo ohms, can change then with the current being pushed.

Impedance Meter Specs:
Tests impedances of applied electrodes used in various diagnostic procedures such as EEG, EKG, EMG, ENG and Evoked Potentials.


Digital Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) indicates impedance with an accuracy of ±5% at 30 Hz. Range is 200 ohms to 200,000 ohms.

Electrode Selection

An electrode selector switch selects any of 10 electrodes for readout. Impedance is indicated for the one selected electrode as referred to all other electrodes connected in parallel as a reference. The electrode terminals on this unit are recessed male 1.5 mm diameter (0.059-inch) GRASS SAFELEAD connectors conforming to the latest requirements of UL, CSA, and FDA. Only recessed 1.5 mm diameter female electrode leads will provide proper connection.


Electrode (test) current is less than 1 microampere. No DC polarizing current.

 

[Ed]

Actually you are not off ignore Claus. I simply hit the option to let me read your post because I was looking for a recent example of some utterance that was potentially libelous and was interested in seeing if you were kind enough to provide it. You were, as you were in your follow-up regarding your lack of knowledge regarding skin's resistance, the resistance of the skin to the test passage of a current of electricity measured in millionths of a volt (microvolts), not ohms. The resistance aka impedance derived from that is obtained by an impedance meter which registers the impedance (which is what it is called in human phsyiology which you may not also know) in units called kilo-ohms. Therefore, like Corey's failed attempt to correct the spelling of Schrödinger's name, your persistent reference to my alleged misunderstanding of the impedance of the skin is in fact based on your own lack of knowledge on this highly specific procedure or some irrelevant remarks made by electric shop hobby boys. I tried to educate you and them by pointing you to web resources on what I was talking about but you weren't interested then and are not educated on this yet or you would have stopped harping on it. Since it is a subject I work with every day and have done so successfully and competently for 30+ years, for a salary, you are also libeling me by falsely casting doubt on my understanding of a subject which you yourself have never come anywhere near much less understand. I, and staff under my direct supervision, perform such procedures on real people on a daily basis. I am not worried because both the people I work with and for know that I am fully conversant with what's involved and why.

.

Steve. What to say.... Impedance is in a non-DC circuit, resistance is in a DC circuit.

A measure of the total opposition to current flow in an alternating current circuit, made up of two components, ohmic resistance and reactance, and usually represented in complex notation as Z = R + iX, where R is the ohmic resistance and X is the reactance.

An analogous measure of resistance to an alternating effect, as the resistance to vibration of the medium in sound transmission.

An ohmmeter has a battery and you are quite right the passage of current is used to measure the resistance, in OHMS.

Since you have proudly explained to us all that this is something you know about, and since you are catagorically, absolutely, brilliantly wrong will you be quiet about this subject now and let those with electronics hobbiest knowledge take over?

to quote you again (cuz it is really funny):

Since it is a subject I work with every day and have done so successfully and competently for 30+ years, for a salary, you are also libeling me by falsely casting doubt on my understanding of a subject

Steve, there is a difference between 30 years of experience and one year repeated 30 times. You, clearly are in the latter camp.

You are loudly expounding on something that you know little about. Guess it's not libel, huh?

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve, there is a difference between 30 years of experience and one year repeated 30 times. You, clearly are in the latter camp.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I could think of some truer words, but I'z afeared of gittin' lawsuited.

 

[SteveGrenard]

EDOLPH--do you know how to spell schrodinger yet? Here's some more specs on this subject to help you understand what we do:



"Prep-Check" Biopotential Electrode Impedance Meters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

105 Prep-Check (for ECG monitoring) - For testing impedances of small numbers of electrodes at 10 or 30Hz. Compact, handheld with large LCD readout. Ideally suited for single lead ECG monitoring.


107-Multilead Prep-Check Plus (for EEG and ECG stress testing) - For testing impedance and offset voltage of up to 160 electrodes using quick-connect multi-pin headbox connector. Automatic and manual operation with fully programmable operating features. Compact, handheld, ideally suited for EEG and ECG stress testing.


107-20A Prep-Check Plus (for Polysomnography, EEG and other biopotential electrode) - For testing impedance and offset voltage of up to 20 electrodes using 0.060" safety DIN connectors. Automatic and manual operation with fully programmable operating features. Compact, handheld, ideally suited for Polysomnography, EEG and other biopotential electrode applications. Illuminated readout for low light environments.
The -105 is a compact, handheld, 3-lead electrode impedance meter for testing lead wires, cables, electrodes and electrode-site preps used for ECG and other biopotential monitoring.

IF YOUR ECGs, EEGs, EMGs HAVE..........
WANDERING BASELINES
FUZZY TRACES
EXCESSIVE ARTIFACT
FALSE HEART RATE ALARMS
LOST HOLTER STUDIES
EXCESSIVE ELECTRODE REPLACEMENTS

..............THEN READ THIS!
Importance Of Electrode Site Preparation:
Problems with cables, lead wires, bad electrodes and improper electrode site preparation cause baseline wander, excessive 60 Hz interference (fuzzy traces), motion artifact and false heart rate alarms. This will interfere with important critical care monitoring, ambulatory monitoring, and stress tests. These problems are avoidable with proper electrode site preparation, use of known-good electrodes and replacement of faulty lead wires and patient cables. Measurement of electrode impedance is a fast, simple way to identify and correct ALL of these problems and smooth out the wrinkles in ECG monitoring.

EVALUATING ELECTRODES AND METHODS OF SITE PREPARATION?
If you have ever tried to evaluate the performance of electrodes, then you know how difficult, subjective and frustrating this process can be. With the introduction of specialty electrodes for stress testing, E.R. use, resting ECGs, etc., combined with the variety of types and price differences, this task is now more difficult than ever. To select the BEST PERFORMING & BEST PRICED electrode for each task, the only way to do this is by actual assessment of the two most essential properties of an electrode, namely, its ability to conduct the ECG signal (what is its impedance?) and its ability to perform in its operative environment (will it stay on the patient?). Whereas you can determine the second property without instrumentation, the only way to determine an electrode's ability to conduct the ECG is by measuring the impedance. The PREP-CHECK is simply the best way to do this!

With regard to electrode site preparation, there are many techniques and materials available to do this. An article, Rx for ECG Monitoring Artifact (see below) published in Critical Care Nursing (Vol 4, No. 1, Jan/Feb 1984) fully explains the sources of ECG artifact and provides helpful insights in addressing them. As the article explains, one very important part of getting good traces is proper electrode site preparation. D.O. Weaver (www.doweaver.com) is one of several providers of prepping agents. They will be glad to send you a sample and, as the article explains, you will see an immediate change in electrode-skin impedance and a concurrent improvement in your traces. Using the PREP-CHECK to monitor your prepping results, you will be able to develop an effective, standardized prepping procedure perfectly suited to your specific needs. You will get clearer, stronger voltage read outs.




EIM-105 PREP-CHECK ELECTRODE IMPEDANCE METERThe EIM-105 PREP-CHECK has long been the "gold standard" in electrode impedance meters and is used by all major monitoring and electrode companies. This simple-to-use instrument quickly measures the QUALITY of your electrode system and pinpoints what is right and what is wrong. Taking just seconds to use, PREP-CHECK provides an clear, unambiguous measurement of the quality of the electrode and the electrode site preparation as well as detecting faulty lead wires and patient cables. Using this simple instrument, you can get good traces ALL the time under ALL circumstances.

Accurate and simple to use, measurements are presented on BOTH a large numerical readout as well as by color-coded GOOD/POOR lights. A lead selector switch permits measurement of each individual electrode and permits unambiguous identification of problem sources. Simple to use, with user-friendly controls, you just plug in your lead wires - push the start button - fix the problems and done! It even turns itself off when you are finished! It's that easy!

Saving valuable time and money, PREP-CHECK minimizes annoying and dangerous false alarming, reduces disturbances to the patient, and provides consistent high quality monitoring. Even if your equipment already has impedance measurement or "leads-off" capability, PREP-CHECK will save time, money and smooth out the wrinkles in ECG monitoring.

PREP-CHECK Features:

Accurate Impedance Measurements
Clear Identification Of Problem Leads & Electrodes
AAMI Recommended Test Frequency
Fast, Convenient Connection To Lead Wires
Large Numeric LCD
Color-Coded Good/Poor Lights
Automatic Turn-Off
Fast & Easy To Use
Lead Selector Switch
Inexpensive, Long-Lasting 9 Volt Battery
Compact, Rugged ABS Plastic Case


Technical Specifications:

Impedance Range: 100 to 199,999 ohms
Impedance Accuracy: +/- 3% of Reading, +/- 200 ohms
Number Electrodes Tested: Up to 3
Test Current: 10 uA, 10 or 30 Hz, Sinusoidal, 0 D.C.
Display: 3 ½ digit, ½" LCD Readout with Good/Poor LEDs
Self-Test: Internal 100k, 1% precision resistor
Battery Test: Continuous, with LCD Indication
Battery Type: 1 9 Volt Alkaline Battery
Case Size: 3.5" x 5.65" x 1.35"
Inexpensive, Long-Lasting 9 Volt Battery
Enclosure: Impact Resistance, Fire Retardant ABS Plastic

 

[CFLarsen]

Again, Steve does not supply sources for his extensive quoting.

 

[Ed]

I am not worried because both the people I work with and for know that I am fully conversant with what's involved and why.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo you are not.

Do they really know how "conversant" you are?

"resistance aka impedence" I love the smug sentence construction and the offhand "aka".

 

[Ed]

EDOLPH--do you know how to spell schrodinger yet? Here's some more specs on this subject to help you understand what we do:



Impedance Range: 100 to 199,999 ohms
Impedance Accuracy: +/- 3% of Reading, +/- 200 ohms
Number Electrodes Tested: Up to 3
Test Current: 10 uA, 10 or 30 Hz, Sinusoidal, 0 D.C.
Display: 3 ½ digit, ½" LCD Readout with Good/Poor LEDs
Self-Test: Internal 100k, 1% precision resistor
Battery Test: Continuous, with LCD Indication
Battery Type: 1 9 Volt Alkaline Battery
Case Size: 3.5" x 5.65" x 1.35"
Inexpensive, Long-Lasting 9 Volt Battery
Enclosure: Impact Resistance, Fire Retardant ABS Plastic

Ummmm...... Impedence is measured in Ohms too, just check the back of your speakers "Impedance=8 Ohms" or something.

You don't get it do you?

Notice the current is AC, not DC as in an Ohmmeter which uses DC.

This is the problem of reading without understanding. But we already established that you have problems with written english already, haven't we?