rude woodturners

[Gretch Flo]

danger of using your name

I am internet challenged. What ARE the dangers of using my name. or my address (or even just state which I thing is importent when asking questions on this forum). I have only bought on line once-actually a nice display pedestal recomm on this forum a couple of months ago-). Just curious. Gretch

 

[Joe Greiner]

After placing a substantial number of posts, an alias loses some of its anonymity, and the alias has just about as much authority as one's real name; pretty much the same as a nickname. So I don't think real names are so necessary. The main reason I use my real name is that it's easier to remember than some clever alias I might cook up.

The "crap" I've seen in the other thread is more in the manner of expression than in the content. Writing my remarks off-line lets me review them for civility, and also preserves them for computer glitches when/if my forum connection goes off the rails.

Joe

 

[KEW]

I am internet challenged. What ARE the dangers of using my name. or my address (or even just state which I thing is importent when asking questions on this forum). I have only bought on line once-actually a nice display pedestal recomm on this forum a couple of months ago-). Just curious. Gretch

Gretch,
You are exactly the situation I was thinking of. You have minimized your internet "exposure" by not making any purchases except the one (which I suspect you had few options on). If you don't know the hazards, be cautious.
I am a bit more foolish than you. I figure that buying over the internet is being done with a great enough frequency that it must be OK (call me a lemming on this count!). I am not especially savvy on these things, but do avoid buying over the internet from any company which doesn't have a history or is not recommended by several people.
The risk I see via giving your ID on a forum like this depends on how much you reveal about yourself. By giving your name and town, you have to assume anyone who wants to could physically locate me. (often name alone is enough given search engine and on-line phone books). Then, if you post (or have a website with) photos of your shop, someone could basically case your shop to figure out what to take and plan how to quickly get it out. Also, it is not unreasonable if someone spent plenty of time on the boards they might figure out if you worked and maybe if your spouse worked - to know if the house is empty during work hours.
That is what I perceive as the worse case scenario, but before we let paranoia run amok, there are other factors to consider:
1) If I'm going to pull a "heist", I'm kind of lazy and might prefer to find a forum for something easier to transport, more valuable, and easier to fence than woodworking equipment.
2) If anyone has seen overview photos of my shop, they would realize they are going to have to negotiate a maze of strategically placed trip/fall hazards to carry out stuff.
3) I have two neighbors who are at home all day, have windows facing my driveway and are curious/bored enough to take a real interest in any going-ons at my house (which I don't mind one bit).

 

[Ruth Niles]

A view from one old lady's eyes:

The fear of posting with real names, or internet identity theft or whatever your fear is, is just the same as the fear of your house being broken into so you get security systems. A thief is a thief and how or what protection you use to make yourself sleep better is ok. I'm naive and figure, until something bad happens, I'll be me. But I don't lock my doors either, I don't live where it's necessary.

I prefer real names. There are some who do post under a real name and a fake one and I have witnessed a more freedom (for lack of a better word) to be critical or confrontational with the fake name. Not EVERY one, but there is no such thing as "EVERY" anyway. It might save embarrassment if you ever happen to meet someone who says "did you read that nonsense stuff 'rudeDude' wrote?" "Yeah, he's a real jerk on the internet." "Well, howdy do, that's me." ( hypothetical but a real fear of mine when I'm in my booth at shows!)

To Peter Skellenger, I suggested the board members be required to read this forum because I do believe they are smart enough to pass over the nonsense posts, the same as most of us do, but they would see what is being suggested to either improve the AAW or a simple one-time thing that members might appreciate. We have moderators that have to weed through all the silly posts.

Ruth Niles
aka Grandma Roof

 

[John Van Domelen]

Fwiw

My user name JOVAN is the name I use to sign my pieces and and is an abbreviation of my full name John Paul Van Domelen - which is a PITA to try and get on the bottom of small works.

 

[Ruth Niles]

"JOVAN" is good.....................

 

[Peter Skellenger]

Ruth- I get what you are saying, I guess I just think it would be a lot to ask to have to go through all of these. I cannot even make it through all of them but anyway- I get it.

Bill G- Wow... It seems as though you have taken my comments about "crap" as an attack on your postings or something... That wasn't my intention but your defensiveness is interesting just the same.

 

[Peter Skellenger]

Regarding the using of a real name... I would add to what Joe said by saying that I thinka real name is great for business if you are selling something. I know that I am always interested in reading posts by Ruth Niles because I give her my money for her products. I love her stuff and I am interested in the person behind the product (whom I like just the same). I also like to read things written by tool manufacturers, people selling wood blanks, videos, whatever. It can be excellent for business or terrible for business to use your real name in a forum like this... depending on how you are able to express yourself.

 

[Brian Hahn]

I am internet challenged. What ARE the dangers of using my name. or my address (or even just state which I thing is importent when asking questions on this forum).

Gretch,
I've been posting on the Internet under my real name for 6 years now and I have had zero (zip, zilch, nada) problems. Not even any spam that could be associated with it.

I frequently buy on line. Just exercise the same type of caution that you would use for in-person or mail order purchases. I buy from reputable companies and always make sure the transaction is encrypted.

The biggest danger is in falling for a phishing scam.

 

[Sean Troy]

Ruth- I get what you are saying, I guess I just think it would be a lot to ask to have to go through all of these. I cannot even make it through all of them but anyway- I get it.

Bill G- Wow... It seems as though you have taken my comments about "crap" as an attack on your postings or something... That wasn't my intention but your defensiveness is interesting just the same.

Hmmm... He still never answered your question Bill.

 

[Gretch Flo]

board memebers reading the forum

To Peter Skellenger, I suggested the board members be required to read this forum because I do believe they are smart enough to pass over the nonsense posts, the same as most of us do, but they would see what is being suggested to either improve the AAW or a simple one-time thing that members might appreciate. We have moderators that have to weed through all the silly posts.

Ruth Niles
aka Grandma Roof

Sort of like the CEO visiting the assembly line, the dept chair or dean visiting the class room, or the boss coming on site. Indicates an interest in knowing the problems/strengths, and becomes more visible to the "masses", Gretch

 

[Bill Grumbine]

Hmmm... He still never answered your question Bill.

No, he didn't, did he?

See Peter, it is like this. I don't see anything wrong with shredding somebody's idea with other ideas, logic, fact, etc. I don't mind if someone does that to one of my ideas (if they can, of course :cool2: ). I do have trouble with dismissing the thoughts and beliefs of others in the caviler fashion you have displayed. Whether it is my post or the post of someone who disagrees with me strongly, to dismiss it as "crap" does nothing to advance the discussion, and is in fact deleterious to that discussion.

I have quite a few friends who do not believe anything the way I believe it. We will discuss our differences passionately, but we are able to remain friends out of respect, and part of that is not denigrating one another's thoughts just because we disagree with them.

Bill

 

[Peter Skellenger]

Ok
Bill Grumbine and Sean Troy-- you guys have the last word. I don't really feel like going on with this anymore. Maybe my choice of words ("crap") expressing my opinion was a poor choice. I appologize. Have a good one. --Peter

 

[Brujo]

Rude no, opinionated yes, uninformed an even bigger yes

I just had to post my favorite quote from this whole global warming wood turners post/opinion fest.

"I am sick and tired of having global warming shoved at me from every possible angle, and now it is in the journal, even if mentioned in passing. It is not proven, and lots of evidence continues to surface that it is nothing more than a natural climate cycle."

God fearing people who are concerned about science being proven. This is comedy gold!

Can we all say irony?

 

[drjcbarton]

I just had to post my favorite quote from this whole global warming wood turners post/opinion fest.

"I am sick and tired of having global warming shoved at me from every possible angle, and now it is in the journal, even if mentioned in passing. It is not proven, and lots of evidence continues to surface that it is nothing more than a natural climate cycle."

God fearing people who are concerned about science being proven. This is comedy gold!

Can we all say irony?

Sir,

The irony is that you assume that the paucity of scientific evidence to date seems to make global warming subsequent to industrialization by humans as a proven fact or law. It is you that lacks an understanding of science. Theories, no mater how compelling, or numerous, constitute fact or transmorgify "magically" into scientific law or conclusions.

 

[Sean Troy]

Ok
Bill Grumbine and Sean Troy-- you guys have the last word. I don't really feel like going on with this anymore. Maybe my choice of words ("crap") expressing my opinion was a poor choice. I appologize. Have a good one. --Peter

Hey Peter, don't feel bad. I said a whole lotta crap on the thread and regret it . Live and learn.

 

[Brujo]

Sir,

The irony is that you assume that the paucity of scientific evidence to date seems to make global warming subsequent to industrialization by humans as a proven fact or law. It is you that lacks an understanding of science. Theories, no mater how compelling, or numerous, constitute fact or transmorgify "magically" into scientific law or conclusions.

To begin with your grasp of the definition of irony seems to be lacking. Nor did I state global warming is a fact. As a scientist myself who is married to a PhD climatologist I would not make that mistake. You are correct it is a theory, just an EXTREMELY WELL SUPPORTED THEORY.

...but this is beside the point.

I was merely pointing out that the author of the original text I quoted stated very clearly to be a conservative Christian. These doctrines demand faith with no supporting evidence unlike the theory of global warming. If the author demands proof to accept the theory of global warming why does he so readily follow doctrines that offer no proof. Considering the plethora of other religions with competing and often contradictory views of the world, it would seem that the very important choice of what god to follow would need the same sort of care and consideration, if not the very same scrutiny that deciding what scientific theory to accept. Considering the far reaching personal implications of choosing a religion compared to picking a scientific theory I would argue more.

Although I did not mention whether I have accepted the theory of global warming drjcbarton seems to infer from my post that I do. Whether I do or not well....

I'll say this.

If any religion had half the supporting evidence that global warming does I'd be a believer.

 

[Bill Grumbine]

God fearing people who are concerned about science being proven. This is comedy gold!

Can we all say irony?

Well, since you are quoting me, maybe I can help you out some. Faith is "...the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). I freely admit to that. But science - true science, is defined as:

"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws". I took this definition from www.dictionary.com.

I guess you think the irony is in a man of faith asking for proof in science. I can understand that, since you are not the first person to throw that in front of me. But since true science depends on proof, I would be silly to accept something that has not yet been proven in the scientific realm. Faith and science are not mutually exclusive, but science requires the repeatability of observable phenomena that faith does not. And if someone cannot offer up that repeatability, then it is faith.

I'll even go as far as to say that I can accept that the planet is warming up. I just don't accept the popular political causes that attribute that warming to human activity. My statement that you quoted is probably not as precise as it would need to be for a scientist, but then, I am a religious artist, so what can I say.

Keep in mind now, I don't claim to prove, or need proof of, my Christian beliefs. Christianity does not require rigorous proof. In fact, the opposite is true. Our Lord Himself said you must have faith as a little child. Whether or not you want to accept or reject my belief is up to you. Actually, being that I am quite the Calvinist, I don't believe it is up to you. But don't let what I believe bother you. I don't let what others believe on faith bother me, unless they try to impose those beliefs on me. At any rate I am glad I could give you a laugh. Some people think I am good at that.

What does all this have to do with woodturning? I have a great job. I get to go around and demonstrate for clubs all over the place. As part of that travel I get to stay in the homes of generous woodturners. And very often this stuff comes up, and we have had the most fascinating discussions, even when most of the time my host and I have conflicting beliefs. No one has been rude, and no one has been ridiculed. Maybe that is because it is face to face.

 

[Brujo]

Well said Bill, please do not take my comments as ridicule that was not the intent.

I like the definition of science you posted, but it is simplified and as always the world can be complicated particularly where people are concerned. There are a few branches of science that have difficulty testing results so as to prove repeatability. For example modern physics and most earth sciences such as geology. Does this mean that their respective theories are less valuable in describing the world? Plate tectonics is a theory that was not accepted for many years after its first publication same with relativity. Both theories have skeptics to this day. How many years did it take Europeans to believe the earth was round? There was plenty of evidence at the time and before...the Greeks even calculated the circumference a couple thousand years before Columbus set sail. Yet today there is still a flat earth society!

New ideas are rarely accepted because of their overwhelming logic or truth. True in general but particularly true when talking about science or religion. What generally happens is the next generation is raised on the new beliefs and ideas, as the older generation dies the new ideas become mainstream.

I will admit if the only exposure I had to global warming was through the general media I to would be a skeptic. The media just says it is. It does not supply the supporting proof. The information is out there. As you said science is not religion and it does not demand faith but it does require one to look at the evidence. You stated you do not mind people shredding your ideas with other ideas, facts, etc. This is not the place to give you all the supporting evidence but if you are open to a new idea I would be happy to point you in the direction of some very convincing journal articles and papers related to our topic.

 

[hockenbery]

We just don’t have the understanding of weather dynamics to predict with certainty the effects of man’s activities.

Relevant facts

1. Scientists use complex computer models to estimate climate change.
2. Our best weather prediction models fall apart after a few days because our knowledge of dynamics of weather let alone climate is poor.
3. Human activities increase carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
4. Global warming is happening.
5. Higher CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to global warming.


This even relates to woodturning. Peter Norris, son of a New Zealand Woodturner, has the job of collecting and providing the measured data used too drive the weather models.
The models start with all the measured data and step through time using formulas that compute what the data will be at a time in the future based on the data from a series of time intervals. The models are quite accurate for a few days. Predicting beyond a few days and all the errors in each formula begin compounding and the models become inaccurate.

We can ignore mans contribution because it hasn't been proven to our satisfaction.
We can choose to dismiss global warming because it is too hard to understand.
We can choose to ignore it because there is nothing we can do or want to do slow it down.
My personal opinion is that it is a bell we cannot un-ring.

Happy turning,
Al

 

[John Van Domelen]

Al - my head tells me that I'm afraid you may be right, my heart hopes it's not too late.

Many people under estimate man's ability to shape, change and do damage to our little blue rock.

I don't - if in doubt - visit a strip mine or an EPA Superfund site. The Brio site is down the road a ways from where I live in South Houston - its been fenced off and toxic for years.

 

[Sean Troy]

To begin with your grasp of the definition of irony seems to be lacking. Nor did I state global warming is a fact. As a scientist myself who is married to a PhD climatologist I would not make that mistake. You are correct it is a theory, just an EXTREMELY WELL SUPPORTED THEORY.

...but this is beside the point.

I was merely pointing out that the author of the original text I quoted stated very clearly to be a conservative Christian. These doctrines demand faith with no supporting evidence unlike the theory of global warming. If the author demands proof to accept the theory of global warming why does he so readily follow doctrines that offer no proof. Considering the plethora of other religions with competing and often contradictory views of the world, it would seem that the very important choice of what god to follow would need the same sort of care and consideration, if not the very same scrutiny that deciding what scientific theory to accept. Considering the far reaching personal implications of choosing a religion compared to picking a scientific theory I would argue more.

Although I did not mention whether I have accepted the theory of global warming drjcbarton seems to infer from my post that I do. Whether I do or not well....

I'll say this.

If any religion had half the supporting evidence that global warming does I'd be a believer.

Doctrines demand faith with NO supporting evidence? Says who? Who says there is no supporting evidence? That was as uninformed a statement as I have ever heard about anything. Just because you choose not to believe for what ever reason does not mean there is no evidence. Wow, some people never cease to amaze me.

 

[Brujo]

I was a why kid (and still am) the answer I have recieved for many a question I have asked concerning religion is you have to have faith. What is faith? I did not know so I looked it up.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
faith (fāth) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

 

[Ken Grunke]

Please, everyone, can we restrain ourselves from discussions of religion and faith on this forum? Can you imagine how easy that topic can get out of control?

 

[MichaelMouse]

Please, everyone, can we restrain ourselves from discussions of religion and faith on this forum? Can you imagine how easy that topic can get out of control?

I believe you're right.

Sort of puzzling that a hundred years of industrialization has managed to do almost as much as one good blast of Pinatubo, though.

 

[Sean Troy]

I believe you're right.

Sort of puzzling that a hundred years of industrialization has managed to do almost as much as one good blast of Pinatubo, though.

!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bill Grumbine]

You stated you do not mind people shredding your ideas with other ideas, facts, etc. This is not the place to give you all the supporting evidence but if you are open to a new idea I would be happy to point you in the direction of some very convincing journal articles and papers related to our topic.

By all means, I would be glad to read up more on the subject. PM or email is fine. Thanks, and I will look forward to it.

Bill

 

[KEW]

Please, everyone, can we restrain ourselves from discussions of religion and faith on this forum? Can you imagine how easy that topic can get out of control?

You are right, it quickly started the downward spiral.

However, for a bit, I was enjoying a civil conversation about religion! Thanks for the rare treat Bill and Brujo!

 

[underdog]

However, for a bit, I was enjoying a civil conversation about religion! Thanks for the rare treat Bill and Brujo!

It can be done. Usually it needs moderation and constant reminders to remain civil. I participate in a blog in which these topics come up often, and we manage it once in a while...

Bill Grumbine, I already had a great deal of respect for you, but you have increased in my estimation. Kudos for your civility and measured response.

 

[Joyce Baldauf]

Having read this entire thread and the previous one to which it refers, I have been amazed by many of the thoughts and ideas expressed. But what has not amazed me is that this thread has proven (in a non-scientific manner) the exact opposite of the thread title. IMHO I hasten to add.

Joyce

 

[Charles Henderson]

Ok, I'll bite

I didn't want to post in this thread, but after my last post in the other I guess I should (#152). I have been decidedly rude to one person in response to what they said. I'm beginning to wish I had made it a PM.

I think this thread was started partially because of one of my posts on the first page. However, I meant it to be a little bit abrasive, not rude. I was only trying to get my point accross. I've tried to make my posts as respectful as possible since my initial reaction though. I'm sorry if I offended anybody.

FWIW, I added a signature with my name so I'm not anonymous anymore. Though, I do have my homepage in my profile already.