4 minutes ago, waitaminute said:

My impression, since you called the response to your question nonsense, is that you didn't understand it....

So you confirm that you asked an AI to refute my earllier comment .

Alternative to your impression is the view that what you posted is not understandable.

Edited August 6Aug 6 by studiot

22 minutes ago, waitaminute said:

You obviously missed a point in my response to swansont:

In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), the Supreme Court struck down a law that prohibited the distribution of anonymous campaign literature, stating that "anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."

And you obviously missed the part where it was an attempt by the government to prohibit 1A speech, and so it was struck down by SCOTUS. We aren't the government so claiming 1A rights here is just wrong, so you should admit that.

Or are you talking about plagiarizing all those anonymous writers the AI copies from? Is that the anonymity you're trying to protect?

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

So you confirm that you asked an AI to refute my earllier comment .

Alternative to your impression is the view that what you posted is not understandable.

So, you've confirmed that you don't understand it, but to your argument: Others do understand it, and the paper has gone through preliminary reviews, one of which is on viXra.org, others have been in real journals, preliminary reviews, all of which have helped further develop the paper. Just Google: Dimensional Bias in Quantum Path Integrals: A Causal Model of Bell Correlations

34 minutes ago, waitaminute said:

That changes nothing about the ethical choice to express oneself anonymously, and true, this is their site, but the site is, by default, through the use of anonymous handles, facilitating anonymity.

My impression, since you called the response to your question nonsense, is that you didn't understand it....

You obviously missed a point in my response to swansont:

In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), the Supreme Court struck down a law that prohibited the distribution of anonymous campaign literature, stating that "anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."

You obviously seem to have problems seeing very bold titles: In my response to swansont:

Legal Means to Achieve Anonymity

Beyond the constitutional protection for anonymous speech, there are several legal mechanisms and practical methods you can use to maintain your anonymity in various contexts:

1. Pseudonyms (Pen Names): You can legally use a pseudonym or pen name for many purposes, such as writing, art, or online activities. There is no general legal requirement to register a pseudonym unless you are conducting business under that name, in which case you might need to file a "Doing Business As" (DBA) or fictitious business name statement with your state or county.

34 minutes ago, waitaminute said:

That changes nothing about the ethical choice to express oneself anonymously, and true, this is their site, but the site is, by default, through the use of anonymous handles, facilitating anonymity.

My impression, since you called the response to your question nonsense, is that you didn't understand it....

You obviously missed a point in my response to swansont:

In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), the Supreme Court struck down a law that prohibited the distribution of anonymous campaign literature, stating that "anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."

The preservation of anonymity neither requires nor justifies misrepresentation. You misrepresented a paper you wrote as being by a 3rd party, with the deliberate intention of gaining a more favourable reception for it. That is by your own admission.

All this guff about anonymity is entirely irrelevant. Especially since you, just a few weeks later, posted another paper bearing the name of the same author, which you said you wrote. So anonymity was - suddenly - no longer a concern, apparently.

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

The preservation of anonymity neither requires nor justifies misrepresentation. You misrepresented a paper you wrote as being by a 3rd party, with the deliberate intention of gaining a more favourable reception for it. That is by your own admission.

All this guff about anonymity is entirely irrelevant. Especially since you, just a few weeks later, posted another paper bearing the name of the same author, which you said you wrote. So anonymity was - suddenly - no longer a concern, apparently.

AH...yeah, it's called a "Little white lie", and anonymity by its very nature allows one, if asked, "Are you the writer?", one does not have to disclose that information, and can even deny it! Now, if the moderators so choose, they absolutely have the right to ban me, but my choice not to disclose it is my right and is ethical...

21 minutes ago, waitaminute said:

AH...yeah, it's called a "Little white lie", and anonymity by its very nature allows one, if asked, "Are you the writer?", one does not have to disclose that information, and can even deny it! Now, if the moderators so choose, they absolutely have the right to ban me, but my choice not to disclose it is my right and is ethical...

Untrue. Anonymity on a forum like this is provided already, in the form of the handle you can choose to be known by when you join. Subterfuge designed to mislead is not required.

12 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Untrue. Anonymity on a forum like this is provided already, in the form of the handle you can choose to be known by when you join. Subterfuge designed to mislead is not required.

You can harp about the "Little White lie" all you want, but from your perspective, every parent who taught their children Santa Claus is guilty of unethical conduct...

4 hours ago, waitaminute said:

That changes nothing about the ethical choice to express oneself anonymously, and true, this is their site, but the site is, by default, through the use of anonymous handles, facilitating anonymity.

Indeed. Thank you for volunteering this — you agree that we afford you that ability to be anonymous, but instead of doing that you chose to misrepresent yourself. You were given the opportunity, and you did not take it. That was a choice you made.