| Revision as of 10:25, 15 March 2008 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,778 editsm Signing comment by 71.114.2.92 - "→Yet another rant: Never edited "Radon"."← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:51, 15 March 2008 edit undoYamla (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators147,963 editsm Protected Talk:Self-replicating machine: Trolling from blocked vandal, Fraberj Next edit → |
| (No difference) | |
Revision as of 17:51, 15 March 2008
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Self-replicating machine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
.jpg){kind=small} | Robotics Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
- testing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.25.253 (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have a question and sincere concern. The "RepRap" project is a rapid prototyping project that admittedly does not self-replicate its own small parts. Should it not be in the rapid prototyping article instead of in here? I am planning on moving it. Rapid prototyping devices alone, inherently have no means of self-replicating small parts unless some hitherto invented accessory is employed. Germs self-replicate all their smallest parts, so do birds. Even with the parts it so-called "self-replicates" it needs a human to supply it with plasic and thereafter to even assemble it. This is far removed from any form of "self-replication". It just needs to be in the rapid prototyping section. RepRap may be important work, it just should not be clasified as "self-replication". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.48.23 (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yet another rant
The only reason my IP showed is that this rag's logg-in failed and then you RHaworth cowardly blocked me to purvey your lies you stinking putrid piece of trash, you are the coward. I'm 6'1 and well versed in advanced marshall arts and will meet you any time and any place. Got that that ye;;ow COWARD?
I'm teaching my groupies how to edit this piece of garbage. If you are looking for trouble you have certainly found it. I have also turned a screen capture of your threatening photo and hacker talk at your user page over to the proper police authorities and contacted my lawyer to sue this rag for clear libel and participatory patent infringement. Got that you piece of s?
I have removed all semblances of the Book "Kinematic Self-replicating Machines" and its authors because they contain copyrighted materials of mine and are infringing and keeping notes of all the user names promoting and protecting them. I am removing "RepRap" because as set forth above it is not any form of "self-replicator" and the project refuses to give me credit for my ideas, well set forth within the description of my patent. Further he has a huge site twice as large as my proposed article.
Oh, one more thing I SPIT IN ALL OF YOUR ROTTING FACES, INCLUDING WIKIPEDIA ITSELF. GO TO H#LL.
Charles Michael Collins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.29.238 (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are Charles Collins. You are currently blocked indefintely. I propose that any anonymous edit to this article should be reverted on sight on the grounds that they are probably from the 6'1" Charles Collins or one of his groupies. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have heard of this Misplaced Pages bias. Now I see it for myself. This is the most crooked affair I've ever seen. I'm just learning but I certainly will figure out how to ".diff" you, and will RHaworth, for the most contentious and bias editing I've ever seen. The patent clearly shows Charles M. Collins had a self-replicator in 1998. What is wrong with you RHaworth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mecha12 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Groupies, fans scientists, don't propose a cheat at the vote. Majority rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.201.140 (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is crazy stuff here. Mecha12 (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
What's the matter Haworth, affraid I'll win the debate? Unblock it now Mr. gestapo coward. What are you trying to hide? The truth? A media zombie's deffinition of anything but a sound-bite is smear it "rant". This is heated rhetoric after I recieved a bio attack, per your own Misplaced Pages rules. Oh, but of course. Misplaced Pages does not play by the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.29.238 (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Collins deserves a rant after you called him a coward and bashed his patents, dear sir admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.75.64 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Collins had a patent in 1989 - that we have noted. A patent is not a machine - we are still waiting for a working device. Who called Collins a coward and where? I think Collins has already ranted far too much - see Archive 2. - RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Collins patents were in 1997 and 1998 (PCT in 1996) and you called him a coward on his userpage talk: "editing anonymously is a cowardly act." Just because his logg-in failed. These mistakes and others and the fact you know nothing about Collins as we do watching this for months so unblock him to speak. By the way, his refute is at this link:
Link it as his contest as he can't. Where were your disputes (and that theif Frietas and Merkle) in 1998 when he had them working? He can't tool back up now for this stupid nonsense, no investor will pay for that now. He does have vidio and it will be on his sight of OLD 1990s class technology, stuff usless for frietas to steal. It took 6 months to replicate and he did not tape it all. No one cared back then until others found they could net get past the patent later making self-replicators. Who's going to fund it now after Frietas's lies and infringing at NIAC and Cornell's infringing? If you were technically minded you would know it is true from looking at the patent and technology. You are not and should not be editing this article without knowledge and history of self-replocating technology. You have no proof he does not when the file wrapper says it does, with prototype submitted. with patent 5,764,518. But you don't know patents either, do you? And you hate them as all Misplaced Pages. So let Charles upon this talk page and listen and learn. You get funding he will make another. You have $100,000.00 to tool back up? Also, Bowyer with RepRap stole his idea of home self-replocation and gets all the funding. Read the patent it is in there but Collins replicates all of replicator not some parts like some silly stacking robot or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.51.202 (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You should NOT say in article: "To date, no working examples of such devices have been CONSTRUCTED" you should say: "To date, no working examples of such devices have been PRESENTED" and that would be true. collins is not all that interested in showing the technology around ubtil newer tech is working faster. Patent file wrapper just says he was first as witnessed by examiner. At least you could put that. Fat chance that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.51.202 (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You are just like spolied brat kid who go home with ball in game Hayworth. You lose voting your way and you block. What kind of democracy is that? Go live in Cuba with Castro bro! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.51.251 (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Collins tells me that a gestapo or a commissar, unlike democracy supresses their voices of dissent Collins is the voice of dissent of Misplaced Pages. It is a violation of NPOV to block him arbitrarily. Unblock NOW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.48.217 (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Where is your rude comments on the alligations that Adrian Bowers has been accused of stealing Collins ideas? Of Frietas and Merkle stealing Collins' ideas? Of Cornell stealing Collins ideas? Where's that mr. smoke filled back room bilderberg media man who hates patents? Yet you say the worst of collins. Twice now he won, twice you revert. what does THAT tell you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.48.217 (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please keep talk page discussion on the topic of improving the Self-replicating machine article. I also request that everyone refrain from personal attacks and incivility. Read WP:TALK for a refresher on talk page guidelines. Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It's easy for you to talk about civil, you don't get free speach blocked FOR NO GOOD REASON like Collins was you underhandid pig! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.198.159 (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You SAY you want inproove article yet you leave insult on collins in article, and you tricked him to move it YOU THE ONE BAD FAITH MAN! Don't come here with your uncincere ethics bunk! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.198.159 (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Now nobody talking but me. You block everybody else right? Cheats! (that's what collins say Misplaced Pages. Collins RIGHT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.198.159 (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Collins tell me he show F-Units TWICE in publik onec at patent office and at WJFK. Government respond with Bilderberg typ attacks like here and steal. Don Jeronimo acuse him of "eathing human flesh" and "having body parts in jars". Chief Dean of Prince William County Police and Quantico KIDNAP and try to commit. Why you no put that in article. NO! you cut off collins when you revamp article you media pig! Collins was civil until YOU ATTACK. Don't give me tha bad faith bunk! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.198.159 (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Put in article this: "To date, no working examples of such devices have been PRESENTED to wikipedia" instead of rude:"To date, no working examples of such devices have been constructed" THAT YOU DON"T KNOW OF THAT and collins get civil again like at first. You media zombies do like he say and are like he say: MERCHANTS OF CHAOS! YOU STARTED THE CONTENTION TRICKING COLLINS. RIGHT? Now again you don't answer to truth. YOU BAD FAITHS MAN. and not Nutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.198.159 (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
GNU and Misplaced Pages are MAFIA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.198.159 (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Let's review a few things. First A large and extensive article named "Self-replicating machine" shows up in Misplaced Pages with me, the only constructor of a "complete" as you like to call it self-replicator completely omitted, yet with the book "Kinematic Self-replicating Machines" with a huge biographical hack job on me with deliberate copyright infringements therein front and center and somehow you are concerned and block me for "self promotion" for rushing in even when your rules indicate bio attacks result in a different handling of such. Further, when I pop up and ask other editors to do an independent article on me it takes six months and looks to be at least a hundred talk pages of haggle until one ultimately got done (but now nothing more than a stub and nothing more than an attack on the patent and myself, this the most important subject since the dawn of time) and during that process which was clearly only feinted to be a good faith effort with no less than four conspiratorial editors swooping out of nowhere after all was very longly and difficultly settled before all this by vote: FrankTobia and Bobprime working "good cops" overtly and RHaworth and Yamla (who lied about seeing RHaworth's weird face on his user page) as "bad cops" working covertly never interring into any discussion with me directly before making drastic contentious edits. The "good cops" invite me into a discussion on how to put together a new article I get blocked for promotion for it and further get second block all at once for "legal threats" after discovering and reporting hacking activity, even though your rules advise against such common sense, prudent measures being punished. Now you have left out my link (see above) to my side of the story and don't let me edit with my user name not even in talk or my own user page. Well I can say that even Geraldo Rivera never did such a bias character assassination and ripp-up which clearly presents a very bias publication in Misplaced Pages against patents and a low tolerance for dissenting opinions being published.
- Also you picked the only self-replicator ever devised and singled it out to state affirmatively that it did not replicate while fully ignoring evidence to the contrary and never point out that none of my competitors have ever made one and do more write ups on my competitors with particular emphasis on Adrian Bowyer whose so call "self-replicator" is anything but and without question should not be in the article here... this simply because he strongly embraces the GNU paradigm. So if you are telling me this and telling me that on nonsense about this is somehow excusable it is falling on deaf angry ears and mine are not alone. Ears disgusted with your rag reporting. You also refuse to add the link (http://www.geocities.com/charles_c_22191/index.html?1205109194480) at the end of your stub article where it was before which is my argument against the Freitas/Merkle attack which was removed though was there at one point with no discussion. Further, (whew) though you indicate you are waiting to see a machine you do not indicate what form would satisfy you while ignoring the photo, witnesses, documents witnessing the device at the patent office by trained patent examiners, WJFK 2 hour long world broadcast radio show by a station that interviews presidents consisting of the first talk show on nanotechnology and self-replicators in history and a letter of operability by a top flight patent checking firm. I suspect that whatever I produce here will only result in more insincere reporting of it as has been done in the past with the usual open media as seen on WJFK, CNN. In short media zombies are just plain liars and scum. Technically speaking, yes... so far. And, Oh! is this bad faith? Indeed! Charles Michael Collins.
- Also I would appreciate it if my full name, not "Charles M. Collins" was put into the article as there are thousands of Charles M. Collins out there (and yes I know the patent misprinted it as such). My site is not finished, I'll let you know soon when you all can read it as complete so leave it alone until I tell you. thank you very much and have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.2.92 (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the full name and syntax correction. I am a very reasonable person when treated fairly. Now if you could remove the lie that is: "To date, no working examples of such devices have been constructed" and replace it with "none have been presented" or "Collins is not revealing his work" then we might be in some form of accord because what I retain as trade secret, particularly after the obvious stealing of my technology and lying by Freitas and Merkle is my own business... and you have no proof of that statement and no means to substantiate it in the least and you should not say such a contentious thing. It is really an antagonistic opinion, not a proven fact. One thing is for certain no video will ever now be submitted to Misplaced Pages. I would strongly suggest you reevaluate your examination of that trash propaganda book "Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines" and portray my comments on the infringements as well (at least) because even Adrian Bowyer said this is the most important technology there is so getting it right is imperative and at least this scandal itself is newsworthy and encyclopedic. What you do right here and now effects everything in everyone's future on this planet (including vast medical applications). Geraldo hacks here are unconscionable. I mean, come on the idiots called me "acquisitive" (this by two rich elites). Are such comments and the tirade any sign of professionalism? It's idiocy. further, they stole my Trolley Car Means! If the technology is so dysfunctional why did they have the need to steal it? Think! Did my site shed any light on this? Come on! Admit it. Let's have some good faith here. It was a bio attack. Right? I have every right to come in here and fight it out. Tell me why this is not the case. You get that right, then we can talk about the kidnapping by Quantico MCB and torture. (I have ALL the documents on that). You guys (and galls) have just scrapped the surface. Just barely. Just barely. Face it. The government is stealing the most important technology since the dawn of time and such will make Watergate seem like a mild hiccup (in relative importance). Charles Michael Collins.71.114.2.92 (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also, another editor or admin stated that I did vandalism to the "Radon" page with this IP. This was not I. Most likely government has launched a proxy (or operatives posed as editors herein) using/with my IP or IP semblance to smear me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.2.92 (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)