Donovan's Geometry Page.......

[pitcairn]

I guess some of the less rigorously inclined folks don't mind following the mad hatter's rules at this tea party, but don't expect anybody with a scrap of critical thinking skills to dance to his mad tune...
I still want to know how Pitcairn came up with those excerpts. How did he know where and how to look for info because as far as I can tell Donovan hasn't given us his family name anywhere in the paltry links (all to his webpage and none that are "independent")


now, Too Stoned, with the massive array of critical thinking skills you have always at the ready, you surely won't find it difficult to follow this Google tutorial:

Mr Donovan did, in fact, reference his grandfather by name in one of his posts here, you may now recall, as one "Stephen Pelham Jewett," altho that actually contained a typo, Pelham should have been Perham; however this presented no problem to a devious sort such as myself, I simply used Dr Jewett's first and last names only in the search string - very sneaky, I know; I needn't have gone to such cunning lengths, in the end, for in fact, if you put in stephen pelham jewett, google offers you the perham spelling as an alternate, you know how it does "did you mean ..."

now for his father Jeremiah Donovan, I used Mr Michael Donovan's posted links here to ... wait for it ... actually GO TO HIS WEBSITE and read much of his posted material there, including his play, which NAMES BOTH HIS PARENTS

btw, his mother, Mary Rita Jewett (Donovan), you will see, in the family history I posted, listed as Stephen Perham Jewett's eldest daughter by his second marriage

holy smoke, how devious a creature I be!

still using Mr M Donovan's posts, I popped "Robert Pavlita" into Google and Lycos, and the rest, as they say, is history

what are you on about Too Stoned? the way it looks from here, you've really taken making an ass of yourself to an order of fine art

or, if you prefer, to an order of hard science


I hardly think you have been repeatedly "lied to" - wasn't that your complaint and justification? oh, the drama!

just becos you are unsatisfied with Mr Donovan's language, diction, writing style, and just about everything else about him, doesn't actually mean he is wrong in his contention(s)

and if you and others find his prose "dense," I believe I can safely assume you have yet to encounter german medical and other biological sciences papers, translated into english: now those are dense; yet they more often than not contain valuable and valid information

if you find Mr Donovan's prose dense, go thro it and make specific inquiries on specific points/passages

or

do as he suggested and try the CAD/Corel demonstration


Mr Too Stoned, you have a very high opinion of your perspicacity, and perspicacious you may sometimes be; but here you have been nothing but dull, boorish, inappropriately battering and needlessly competitive

are we all trying to understand something possibly new and provocative, and get clarity, or do you just want to bash people to reassure yourself of your intellectual superiority?

btw, a "compliment" from one such as yourself on my vocabulary means less than nothing - your constant resort to foul language and pitifully crude name calling hardly places you in line for editor of the next edition of the OED

oh and finally: for such a Sherlock as yourself, so skilled at "reading between the posts" for clues to evil consort among posters near and far, however is it that you failed to detect that Mr Pitcairn is .... a woman!


I haven't much time this morning, so I apologise to all and sundry for any typos or grammatical inadequacies

[TooStoned]

Pitcairn:

I'm somewhat satisfied by your explanation of whereby you came up with the links.
I'm glad you went through the effort of finding them, because I, despite what you may believe, am about finding the truth. Looking for Donovan's parents names was not a priority for me, as who they were isn't relevant to Donovan's ideas. The fact he mentions them to somehow validate his contentions merely merely demonstrates that his ideas can't stand on their own merits. My priorty was matching his statements with known facts.

And the truth is no matter who is parents may be, he grossly misuses scientific terms and utilizes dishonest argumentation. The proof lies in his posts and mine.

It is great you can look past all the bogus claims to find some gold in Donovan's dross, but don't expect anyone with more native skepticism than you to look beyond the demonstratbly false statements about quantum physics, chemistry, biology,math etc and the bait and switch argumentation of Donovan.

And don't expect people who know better to let Donovan's misstatements about established fact to shut up about it.

I believe Donovan's "style" as you put it, sounds awfully similiar to the cons used by every New Age Charlatan with a chip on the shoulder...

If Donovan wants to claim he can find the angle of great pyramid using a new method, great. Post all the steps and talk about implications. But he shouldn't claim his empiricism is a "mathematical proof" of his "new geometry" because to do so is demonstrably false.

I've hacked down his other misstatments elsewhere so I won't do it again here. (I'm sure that pleases you and the rest of the 'true believers")

Good luck PC, but I'm sure myself and others won't let sleeping dogs lie...

[pitcairn]

I'm somewhat satisfied by your explanation of whereby you came up with the links.
I'm glad you went through the effort of finding them, because I, despite what you may believe, am about finding the truth. Looking for Donovan's parents names was not a priority for me, as who they were isn't relevant to Donovan's ideas.

Too Stoned, please take a moment and a breath, I fear your head is on fire with your distaste for Mr Donovan

but that heated distaste is not to be confused with logical and sensible objection

Too Stoned, YOU brought up Mr Donovan's references to his father and grandfather!!!!! and you did so in the context of sneering sarcasm and noxious, unresearched, doubt: I checked the facts, with little or no trouble, and presented them, in an effort to forestall the often implied taint of "false in one false in all" - Mr Donovan was not false in respect to his parentage, in either standing or accomplishment

and then you accused me of some prior knowledge and aquaintance, and further, implied nefarious consort and deception, between myself and Mr Donovan

to what possible purpose could there be any such consort and deception?

have you any idea how ridiculous this all sounds, and is?

and now I've reached a very unpleasant state that I believe is in contravention of the rules here: you, sir, have falsely accused me of deliberate deception; of being someone other than who I am; and of enjoying, and concealing to a deceitful end, aquaintanceships I do not, in fact, enjoy

Burnt Hill was glad to see me here, and, indeed, I glad to see him; the fact is, I had taken a break from posting to the board altogether for a few days, on account, as it happens, of this and other disgraceful threads, and the equally disgraceful treatment of many who are simply trying to have an open discussion - vigorous debate included, to be sure - but without the absurd performance of "Lord of the Flies," inserted by a cast that includes at least one prefect

no one, sir, questions your right, indeed your duty, if you see error, to counter that error and put forth your own argument and proofs; but I hardly imagine such a right and duty is well served by the approach you taken thus far

and it is not up to you, Mr Too Stoned, to adjudicate, with astoundingly smug arrogance, the truth of my sincere explanation referenced above: I did as I said I did in respect to finding those websites, and your being only "somewhat" satisified with the clear (and easily repeatable for verification) explanation is insulting, and I suspect deliberately so

how persistently graceless, Mr Too Stoned

and how unnecessarily so

I have grown tired of this, and you will get your wish: it is not to my taste to frequent places claimed to be bright salons that are in fact tawdry and dark saloons, where every low brawler commands the room and good fellowship be damned

oh, and if I might: how the hell would you presume to know whether or not I might be a true believer of anything, and/or a skeptic of nought?

you do not know me, and it appears you are also, truly, a stranger to yourself

[Donovan]

When Time’s science editors could not fully understand the DNA explanation (it was either Watson or Glick who they flew to Rockefeller Center) they asked my father to make a pictorial. It was one or the other that he worked with and came up with a diagram, one of a number of ways or presentation which ‘stuck’. He later stated there was a better way. Oddities of mapmaking. He was also often cited as having the only diagram of the Wankel engine that was understood. He stated that the only reason it was understood was that it was contrived, no real views would explain it.
Does not tell the full story but go to, Jeremiah Donovan at:
http://www.negia.net/~grossman/donovan.html

I gave pyrite as example of cubed crystal as it can be seen. Salt is more common, true, but would the average person know?. Too Stoned making much out of little. As if someone complaining about lint on your tie when they are pissing on your shoe.

Geometry still stands. Too Stone wimps and tries to cover.

[philipacentaur]

Mr. Donovan: Just say Crick (not "Glick") once, please. James Watson and Francis Crick.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Yeah, I remember when Donovan mis-spelled the name of Nikolai Kozyrev, a lot of people jumped down his throat.

He might be a rambling weirdo, but it's a very rich tapestry of references, and most of it checks out.

Also, accusing Pitcairn of collusion just because he's got the initiative and interest to investigate -- that's just plain goofy.

[philipacentaur]

I think it's a rich history, for sure. I still think it leads nowhere, but I'd rather see him present his case in a way that doesn't invite nitpicking and ridicule; it would help with the "dignity" that was discussed elsewhere.

Getting Crick's name right would help.

[Donovan]

Highly dyslexic. Can not write at all without computer. The names were from memory spelled whatever way that came.

When it came to the meat you wimped. Still wimp. Challenge stands. Moving over to Action or whatever other thread with that first letter … Activism…. If you want to do the proof I am there.

[Kid Of The Black Hole]

Kid of the black hole: follow my links (something donny the bs artist does't provide) a mathematical proof is not "just a list of steps" but rather a series of true mathematical statements that "prove" the the theorem is correct.

Well, I may have been misunderstanding, but what he was offering seemed more like a way to construct an angle than a proof of a theorem to me.

But, yeah, he definitely hasn't offered a mathematical proof that I've seen.

[TooStoned]

I'm sorry if my aggresive stance toward Donovan has done anything to "injure the dignity" of these threads.

However, I arrive at my ire because of many pages of his mis-statements, followed by endless obfustication; after he's called on his mistakes he makes one smoke screen comment after another.

Kid of the Blackhole:

Well, I may have been misunderstanding, but what he was offering seemed more like a way to construct an angle than a proof of a theorem to me.

Well here's two of Donovan's posts from the orgonite cloudbuster thread where he claims what he's presented are "proofs"

Donovan



Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 52
Location: Camden, ME
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:38 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My proof is posted.
www.midcoast.com/~michael1
_________________
Donovan

and just below it this:

Donovan



Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 52
Location: Camden, ME
Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:21 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proof was double checked with radians.
go and disprove it. It is there
www.midcoast.com/michael1

I would like to note three things about these posts:
1) they were replies to my requests for "mathematical proofs"
2) his replies don't point to anything but his front page; why not point directly to the relevant page with the "proof"
3) He still has yet to produce the "proof done in radians by someone else" that he keeps mentioning

There is something about math proofs. They are or they are not

That's Donovan's own words.

Look I realize this guy can weave a lot of threads into a tapestry, some of them maybe interesting, but unless he levels with us how can you trust anything he says?

Come on guys, whatever happened to the programmers' maxim: Garbage in Garbage out?

I'm sorry that I lost my cool, but man o man he is murdering subjects I truly love...

Edit 1: corrections for spelling and grammar

[Et in Arcadia ego]

I'm sorry if my aggresive stance toward Donovan has done anything to "injure the dignity" of these threads.

Not at all. I'm glad you're here, matter of fact.

In light of the continued difficulties here in the new area, I've sent a serious note to Jeff about this never-ending disaster that's been introduced here, and it's going to be addressed in a more re-inforcing manner or we're looking at serious problems with this board. If people don't like my attitude, I'll gladly drop my mod role, hell, if this is all that's gonna be offered here, I see little point in staying at all, but don't count on my handing over a personal victory to you people that easily, however.

I'm not moderating here for just any reason, and while I truly hate to excercise my limited authority in this way, I'm now locking this thread until it can be reviewed properly by Jeff with the feedback of the FULL moderator team, which is exactly why I called for more mods in the first place. If my own thinking is skewered on this subject, chances are good to excellent that the other three mods and Jeff will arrive at a fair conclusion on what the next step should be here.

My way of looking at it is a simple one:

Friction is not born of a vacuum. These issues would not be in place if they didn't trigger SEVERAL person's bullshit meters, and again, public opinion in the Orgone poll has suggested the majority of this board couldn't care less about Orgone and mudballs.

I'm willing to lay my moderator position on the line to back this up.

See ya when Jeff's finished deliberating over this, and thanks a million for giving him one more thing to have to be distracted by when he could be doing far more important, and more poignantly, REAL attempts to puncture the black cloud we all live under.

More instagational threads are subject to IMMEDIATE removal to the Fire Pit.

[Burnt Hill]

And since the thread is now unlocked, do you admit your own thinking is skewered?

[Et in Arcadia ego]

And since the thread is now unlocked, do you admit your own thinking is skewered?

No, but if you're unhappy with my unlocking the thread I can lock it back if you want.

[Wombaticus Rex]

And since the thread is now unlocked, do you admit your own thinking is skewered?

I'm honestly sorry/wary to interject, but having observed you and Arcadia interact, I have to ask -- do you want to be a moderator?

[philipacentaur]

My thinking is a shish kabob.