|[ Main index » Criticism about tests and reviews and forums » The issues with forums: Moderators on candlepowerforums||]|
I linked to this page from my bicycle lighting review page and my lighting analysis page.
So, I wrote on CPF (candlepowerforums.com) in Feb. 2020, a message about taillamps that hinder (in various forms) is caused by luminance, i.e. cd/m^2. Then some dickhead moderator tries to correct me about various issues showing he is almost certainly autistic and doesn't understand all the issues in what causes impairment of vision (which this idiot could easily have tested himself!) and tells me I should look into it more before giving a 'class'. It's the other way around, this clown tries to give a class without understanding how to interpret normal language (which is because he is autistic), and without knowing the facts on the essential issues (which he could have prevented with doing some actual f-ing experiments!). Note that autistic people should not be in any position to judge or have power over other people (such as being a moderator), after all, if you can't properly understand other people you should not be allowed to judge them or make decisions that impact them.
2020-3-31: See message v1 for the old version of the message criticising and correcting 'virgil' on cpf, in which I gave them and Greta choices for actions in case of editing or removing my post. 'virgil' posted a particularly stupid post but he is also a moderator and that combination is a problem, as after all, what happens when someone exposes his incompetence and ignorance? I sent site owner Greta a link to my criticism in February which I posted here on my site before I would post anything on cpf. Due to delays I didn't get to post it on cpf, and in the end I decided I don't care about cpf, and it didn't matter because my account was locked. How amusing.
If you want to visit a forum about torches/flashlights, go to http://budgetlightforum.com, you will find all the expertise you need or want there, with normal moderation (i.e. from what I asked the owner: moderation is only done if absolutely necessary).
So here are:
1. My reply to 'virgil' that I can't post as cpf has made it impossible for me to reply but I don't care any more either. This also means my boycott of cpf is now immediate and forever. Compared to the 1st version I added experimental and theoretical proof that my original post was right and extra analysis of 'virgil''s incompetence by giving a score similar to a classic computer game :) For each stupid comment or misunderstanding from being autistic and thus steering readers the wrong way he gets -1 point, for each useful bit of information +1 point.
2. Following that reply, you can read about the insanity of another moderator with handle (this is not a name!) 'Alaric Darconville' who wrote one of the most insane messages that I've ever read in my life.
3. Following that bit of insanity a synopsis on autists and psychopaths
4. And to end, information on how to get the ECE rules from a reader of my site who read my criticism (1st version of my reply) in February on my site.
I'm going to give 'virgil' points similar to in a classic computer game, for useful (+1) and non-useful comments (-1) :
[ addition 2020-6-10: I posted this version of my reply on 2020-4-1, and it was not an April fools joke, but it was a joke (I thought up this type of criticism with points as in a game some weeks earlier, and felt that it would be a fun way to criticise that guy), but it was also not a joke, if you see what I mean :) ]
Quote Originally Posted by swhs
Car headlamps approved via ECE rules (r113) are restricted in lux and lumen, and of course the light going upwards (above the horizon) is limited just as much as with incandescent lights so that has not increased from before Xenon lighting. Don't know what the rules are in the USA
You don't appear to know what the rules are in Europe and the rest of the world where UN Regulations (you are calling "ECE rules") are in effect, either. UN R113 defines motorcycle headlamps, not car headlamps. R113 headlamps are permitted only on L-class vehicles (motorcycles). M- and N-class vehicles (cars and trucks) have to have headlamps as specified in UN R112 (halogen and LED), R98 (HID) and R123 (AFS/ADB) -- motorcycles may optionally be equipped with car/truck headlamps.
Moreover, R113 (as well as R112) mentions lumens only with regard to certain light sources and combinations of light sources used in headlamps. R98 does not mention lumens at all. None of these regulations specify headlamp output in terms of lumens; there's not a word about lumens within the beam.
What I am calling ECE rules? ECE R113 = UN/ECE R113, saying UN R113 is also incomplete. Calling the rules ECE is just fine. Your abbreviation is better than mine, eh?
Your score: -1 point for insisting on a different abbreviation.
But there is more. You seem to unaware that just about everyone in the industry and outside it calls the rules ECE. Only 1 person besides you with whom I had contact called those regulations UN Rxxx, everyone else, from users to people working on new regulations on various continents, said/wrote ECE. Coincidentally, recently I got a brochure from Kirschbaum "Fahrzeug technik, EU, UN(ECE)" and on the books is printed: 'Fz Technik ECE' (not 'Fz Technik UN(ECE)', not 'Fz Technik UN'.
Your score: -1 point for not knowing what is customary and yet criticising me for writing it in that way.
Oops, yes, I wrote R113 instead of R112, and indeed the former is for motorcycles. I remembered that one especially as I analysed it long ago and therefore I thought about that being it. I know about the different ECE rules for cars, if you think I don't know about them then that says more about you than about me! There are multiple obvious possibilities: 1) I made a typo, 2) I wrote R113 though I meant R112, 3) I don't know about the regulations.
You simplistically assumed (3) whereas 1 or 2 are the obvious choice. With just 2 clicks from the link in my post to my site about issues with StVZO/TA, you would have come via "Bicycle lighting regulations in various countries" to "ECE r113 bicycle lighting rules (E-bike)". You would then have noticed that I analysed R113 and could have guessed that this is why this number stuck in my mind but also that I know R113 does not apply to cars. You could also have read there that I didn't know whether the ECE regulations were freely available, I had not found them for free, only from paid surces, and that I didn't have the latest ones should have been clear to you...
Your score: -1 point for silly assumptions and no checking.
My copy of ECE R113 is/was old. A reader sent me links to download the newest ones after he had read my reply to your post that I already placed on my site and that I intended to post in February. In any case, my old regulation talks about bulbs (incandescent), that are restricted such that for cutoff light:b) bei Scheinwerfern der Klassen A und B der Bezugslichtstrom für Abblendlicht nicht mehr als 600 lm beträgt;
c) bei Scheinwerfern der Klassen C und D der Bezugslichtstrom für Abblendlicht nicht mehr als 2 000 lm beträgt.
So all types have light output restrictions (lumen). It seems to me very unlikely that in later regulations they suddenly removed the restrictions, or that suddenly for LEDs or Xenon you are allowed more light ouput, but perhaps that is the case with a leveling system that I do know is required for high output Xenon lamps for cars. I'm not going to check further, this doesn't interest me enough.
As you are clearly autistic, this means can't look at the larger picture of the differences between what I said was in R113 and your more up to date standards (which you should and likely did realise from candela vs. lux, see further, and try to find out why these are different, then realise the cause, and then you could have mentioned things like auto-levelling, and so have given an actually helpful informative post, but such things are not what you can provide, precisely because of not understanding connections in more complex topics. You noticed further on that I mentioned lux, and you talk about only candela being mentioned in ECE. From that change that you are aware of, you could and should have realised that I had older copies of the ECE standards... Then you could have given a proper (more meaningful and more polite) reply...
The -1 point for not understanding this I will include in the previous -1 point though really you deserve another -1 point.
Your score: +1 point for listing the ECE rules that apply, but further:
Your score: -1 point for not giving useful information of the restrictions of high output lamps.-Virgil- wrote:
Moreover, in all three regs the old lux specs at named screen-distance points were superseded years ago by candela specifications at angular coordinates.
I didn't have the latest ECE regulations, which you could have deduced, but anyway, you do realise don't you that in practice measurements are done at long distances (25 m or so) and generally by that point the lamps can be considered close enough to point sources such that making the distinction between lux as projected onto a screen and cd doesn't really matter much? In any event the lux values that I mentioned can be used to compare the glare from bicycle and car headlamps, and glare/impairment of vision does depend on emitting area but I will get to that further on.
Your score: -1 point for a useless commentCars going over crests is an issue but it's an annoyance, not so bad normally that you don't see anything. I've been blinded more by a too high aimed Edelux-Virgil- wrote:
What you are doing here is very common and quite wrong: you are mistaking what you think you've seen/think you've felt for actual objective fact. We (humans) are not equipped to accurately judge how well our eyes are working, it only feels like we are. In terms of actual, measurable, objective visual performance you almost certainly haven't actually been "blinded" by an Edelux aimed too high, you just felt like you were.
I'm not making a mistake in anything here. I know exactly what I experience. Further, someone saying he is being blinded doesn't always mean he can see absolutely nothing, it is commonly used to indicate that your vision is severely impaired. You are clearly autistic, from taking everything literally and very precisely defined. Though then strangely you are writing UN R113 instead of UN/ECE R113, and also strangely you didn't seem to have noticed the implicit contradiction in 'blinded more' which is present if you assume that 'blinded' means not being able to see anything, hmm.... [ such incompetence in not seeing connections is typical for autists, by the way ]
Notice that I wrote "I've been blinded more by a too high aimed Edelux". You cannot be blinded more than being totally blinded so blinded here is used in the sense of vision being severely impaired... And I'm not saying "blinded more" in the sense of "blinded more times" as I mention just the 1 time that it happened...
Your score: -1 point for not understanding the meaning of blinded.
Your score: -1 point not seeing other options than saying that I made a mistake.
And by the way it is definitely possible to be 100% blinded by some bicycle lamps, it depends on the exact light distribution (and power) of such a lamp. I experienced it for example with a Magicshine long ago (less than 500 lm).The issue is light emitting size... The smaller the lamp and thus emitting size, the more it will hinder, even blind you-Virgil- wrote:
This is not correct. For any given intensity, a smaller emitting surface will naturally have higher luminance, which will mean looking at it causes more discomfort glare, but -- this is the important part -- increased luminance does not aggravate disability glare (i.e., the degradation of visual acuity). Disability glare is purely a function of intensity, not of luminance.
What a load of rubbish!
I wrote "the issue is light emitting size... The smaller the lamp and thus emitting size, the more it will hinder, even blind you".
I did NOT write "disability glare is caused by".
Your score: -1 point for assuming 'issue' is only 'glare'.
Your score: -1 point for assuming blinding only consists of "disability glare".
Impairment of vision consists of various issues, adaptation to bright lights, discomfort glare (which impairs the processing of vision as if you are distracted, you won't notice everything very well, so that psychological issue can definitely cause actual glare in the sense of not processing in your brain correctly things that you may see with your eyes!), and the internal lighting issue in the eye, i.e. disability glare and likely more factors, as there is the issue of luminance, which is real! (this is likely a composite of adaptation and the point source vs. non-point source nature of a larger light and getting closer to that means the non-point source nature becomes apparent in (directional) measurements and thus also in the eye. E.g. in TA they prescribe that measurements should be done at such a distance that the taillamp can be considered a point source...)
Actual impairment of vision, i.e. not being able to see properly other things close to a near-point source of light, is definitely an issue. I know this from experience, while riding at night, unable to see things close to some very bright almost point source like taillamps (likely not StVZO approved, but I will get to that further on). Even an StVZO approved taillamp with near point source really impairs my vision (i.e. being able to see/distinguish other things near it) whereas a different taillamp with at least the same light output in cd coming from a large surface (also an approved taillamp) causes no impairment of my vision.
To confirm it (again), I just tried the following: I tried a Spanninga Lineo, >10 cd according to Spanninga. Vs. a B&M's Toplight flat plus (IIRC ca. 8 cd, in any case less than 12 cd as that is the maximum allowed in TA), and while having my fairly strong main room light on that illuminates everything quite well, I first put the Lineo on the bed spread. I had no problem seeing the colours and the patterns on the bed spread. Then I did the same with the Toplight flat plus (bare LED plus a poor distribution via some sort of lens, i.e. luminance is very high), I could see next to the Toplight: nothing! I couldn't see any colours, I couldn't see any pattern [ I saw only a black nothingness there ]. And this is with a bed spread that is quite well illuminated! So yes, a small surface area emitter most definitely affects what you are able to see [ which a light with the same brightness but larger emitting area does not do ] as well as cause discomfort.
But, there is more. I can look at "disability glare" theoretically, only looking at the intensity in cd, and then it is clear that that is greatly influenced by the emitting area, simply from changing distance, i.e. in case of a large light emitting area, you will, when you get closer, get a lower value in cd. This is so because light is generally emitted most strongly straight ahead, then dropping off to the sides. You see this in LEDs. If you take several light sources, that have an emitting range of say from -60 to +60 degrees from the normal direction, then when these emitters are far enough you will see light from all sources, when you get close enough, not see a number of them any more. And thus the value in cd (even while accepting larger differences in directionality of light at a given measurement spot) will drop... In a not so large emitting area there is still the issue of directionality and also a drop of intensity in cd from areas at the larger angles.
[ Addition: This is exactly the point I made to the researcher working on the new TA, that with high luminance (near point source) taillamps and DRL you are annoyed more the closer you get (which doesn't happen with taillamps and DRL have a larger illuminated area and yet still have the same intensity, as measured from a large distance), and that is NOT useful. DRL and taillamps are used to be noticed, you don't to be noticed/annoyed more the closer you get, it needs to be at a certain distance. or with a certain amount of glare even, not with a lot more but that is what happens with a small emitting area because of coming close (more light is captured by the eye on the same area) whereas with a larger illuminated area that has a lower luminance but at distance the same intensity you will not be annoyed/blinded as much ('blinded' in the non absolute meaning, I just mention it for autists like you who don't understand how language is used). Note that with cutoff light you will already be noticed and the advantage of that is that intensity drops at shorter distances (esp. useful when opposing traffic is close to you), thus I consider this a superior form of making yourself seen compared to DRL (which is designed to be at certain limits in intensity and luminance to give some glare). ]
A few days later I went on a bike ride, saw 2 women ride side by side about 20-30m ahead of me, one with a good taillamp, another with a point source. With the woman with good taillamp I could make out the rear rack, saddle, everything on her bike, with the other one I could not see anything from taillamp to saddle and ditto distance below and to the sides of the taillamp, not from glare, but what must be from adjustment to the intensity, as I saw around it almost only black.
Your score: -1 point for not doing any experiments and not looking at night at what influences your vision.
And let's have a look at Wikipedia (oh and don't retort that it's not a scientific reference, it is almost always correct):---
Glare is caused by a significant ratio of luminance between the task (that which is being looked at) and the glare source. Factors such as the angle between the task and the glare source and eye adaptation have significant impacts on the experience of glare.
But just for fun via a websearch I had a look at a few randomly chosen research papers and saw several from various years of publication, and noticed they often use luminous intensity onto the eye to calculate veiling luminance, but also there was mention in some papers about the fact that they usually took point sources long ago for tests and that lights with bigger sources and source size had not been examined enough in how it affects vision, i.e. glare as a whole/impairment of vision. I found one research paper on streetlights which did look more into this more and there they say:"However, stronger glare effects may also be introduced due to the compact size. Especially the high luminance could be observed from the white-LED based street lamps."
I don't have more time (nor interest) to figure out what researchers have further calculated or what tests they have done in the latest research. I'm sure of what I experience, I've done enough tests, I know that near-point light sources impair one's vision, and are detrimental to e.g. distance estimation, which is also one of the issues, i.e. one of the hinders that I referred to by "the more it will hinder", it's not just about glare/discomfort/impairment of vision, but in inability to estimate distance.
Your score: -1 point for not doing any fact checking.similar to a laser-Virgil-:
Not at all similar to a laser. Lasers produce coherent beams; vehicle lights do not -- no matter what technology they incorporate.
Yes, similar to a laser in the sense that your vision gets similarly impaired! [ with a low power light source even ]. Why do I have to explain this? Clearly you are autistic in taking everything literally. Again, clearly it isn't meant that a bicycle light with point source is the same as a laser. This was meant for people who might have experienced a low power laser causing not being able to see but not experienced such an effect from a bicycle light, or for people who know this is an issue, from being told so via e.g. news reports on pilots getting blinded from people shining laser pointers to aeroplanes! And I know everything about lasers, including the physics of how (why) they work, you don't need to (try to) lecture me. You don't seem to understand that I and other people who are not autistic can write in a way that is approximate, to give an idea of how something works or what one might experience, for those who are not experts, which the thread starter for one isn't...
Your score: -1 point for not understanding this obvious meaning of the comparison with a laser for people who are not experts.-Virgil-:
It might be a good idea for you to assume/guess less and learn/know more about the science of this field before you start handing out advice and trying to teach classes about it -- especially if you are trying to funnel business toward what appears to be some kind of commercial activity in consulting on vehicle lighting.
Hey Virgil, It might be a good idea for you to assume/guess less and learn/know more about the science of this field AND DO SOME EXPERIMENTS, before you start handing out advice and trying to teach classes about it to people here on CPF. -- Especially since as a moderator you have extra power which means that people may not dare correct you on matters for fear about being banned or posts getting edited in such a way as to remove the parts that show your ignorance or your inability to understand normal use of language...Your score: -1 point for a moronic summary and assuming you are an expert when you know very little and understand almost nothing.
You are in no position to tell me anything, you don't even know what causes real impairment of vision. You have clearly never opened your eyes at night and seen that actual impairment from near point source taillamps takes place, and so that surface area matters. You clearly also have never done any experiments in this field, at least not with your eyes open.
I'm not trying to funnel any business. I am not impressed by such inane insinuations, but I suppose from an autist you can expect such a misreading of the meaning of a post...
Your score: -1 point for a moronic insinuation of why I post on cpf.
Your TOTAL score: 1 - 14 points = -13 points. Congratulations, you have the low-score! [ and seeing how few sentences you wrote, this much disinformation means your entire reply is clearly: retarded ]
Are you by any chance one of the reasons there are so few postings on cpf these days in the bicycle forum?
I got a PM about the issue that moderation removed some postings and thus that because of that I wasted my time. I didn't care much but it is clearly a problem here with moderation. Removing those posts was done by 'Alaric' who similarly has almost zero reading comprehension. The removed posts in the thread "Custom Lens Designer Required (StVZO, Cree XP-L)", had interesting information on test labs, KBA, duration for approvals and much more. that gave insight into the issues in approval that lighting makers have to deal and that could be of interest not just to lighting makers. They should have been moved to a new thread! I asked the likely moderator and that was as I expected 'Alaric'. He replied to my PM something about the rest looking like 'advertising for Exposure'. Eh, what? No it f-ing wasn't, he just deleted all because he didn't understand the text. It wouldn't surprise me if he is autistic like you. [ Addition 2020-4-1: After reading his latest message to me, this is more or less confirmed, see further on ]
I was proactive, and in February a few days after your nonsensical post sent Greta a link to the text of an earlier version of this reply with my criticism of what you wrote. I wanted to post that in February on cpf, along with options on how to proceed, but in the end due to discussions and other things that took up my time, I altered the post a bit to have some fun with points, and I post it only now on my site, and don't care what happens further on cpf.
PS. In your reply to Marcturus you wrote about the 12 cd "that is important". No it's not important. 12 cd is simply the limit in the old TA, nothing more, nothing less and Marcturus also didn't imply that this limit is important. What is important in taillamps is the combination brightness + illuminated area + size. You don't grasp this topic at all...
NOTE: When I finally had time to post I couldn't post anything there. It means cpf/greta/the moderators can't deal with justified criticism and so there is only one thing to do: Herewith I boycott cpf. I recommend readers of my site to not visit cpf/candlepowerforums because of retarded moderators (autistic with zero reading comprehension) who are kept in place by the forum owner. This will not change as clearly there is no interest in cpf to improve the situation (that could only happen if the moderators in question are removed), so I told greta to remove my account. If you read this, be aware that if you take part in anything on cpf/candlepowerforums you will reward this behaviour and keep those inane moderators in place.
NOTE 2: Someone sent me a message that virgil is a narcissist and that he found his pettiness about details strange. I don't know whether he is a narcissist, but from this 1 post in reply to me he is clearly autistic which means that details and rules is all what he looks at, and actual understanding is what he doesn't have. This is why he insists on 'correcting' petty details but which results only in showing his own incompetence because such details either don't matter or these details that he perceives as incorrect are in fact correct and thus reveal his lack of knowledge and understanding because such an autist doesn't really self-correct (except in certain very limited ways) his incomplete knowledge/understanding, or reveal his lack of understanding in what is actually meant in normal use of language. I will tell a bit more about the issues further on.
In a PM about the issue or removing posts the moderator responsible for the inane moderation replied to me:
Default Re: Editing/removing posts in the thread about a cutom lens designer, bicycle section.
Quote Originally Posted by swhsL.S. = lectori salutem, to be used when you don't know the name the recipient. I don't know whether any 'name' as used on a forum is a real name or just a handle, so that seems the best option to start.It's 2020,
=== [ Comment: Oh really, that's news to me! ]
we use the names people prefer we use. If we use a name in public, that's the name we want to hear. Or if we're given a name and want to keep the name, we use that in public, and again, it's the name we want to hear.
=== [ Comment: No it's not. It's rarely a name, almost always a 'handle' (identifier), nothing more, nothing less. You have no concept of normality. ]
This is why we call trans men and trans women by the name they pick. We don't call Caitlin Jenner *Bruce*, just because we saw that deadname used for years and years on TV and in magazines. This is why we call Elton John Elton John, instead of Reginald Dwight. This is why we call people who use their birthname by their birthname because they haven't said otherwise. You picked me to message so you should have known the name to use. I know NOW your name is Wouter, but if I were to have called you swhs before I knew your real name, name then surely that can't be wrong-- that's the name you put up publicly. I don't need to speculate what your name is, I just need to use the name you've chosen on the board.
The use of lectori salutem, then comes across both as a little pretentious, and as deliberately ignoring that I have a name and it's right there next to every post I make.
=== [ Comment: 'Alaric', you are insane! This guy 'Alaric' would tell you if your email address is email@example.com that your name is alpha as you have clearly chosen that. No it f-ing isn't, it's a handle, an identifier, that you choose as a reference, not your name! Forum/newsgroup names are also chosen as an anonimiser, not a name someone wants to be addressed with, esp. so in a direct message, not necessarily so in a reply to another comment. There is yet another possibility, your own name can be taken and instead of adding numbers or something, you take something else that you can easily remember but that does not make it your name. Further he piggybacks onto political correctness, which is clearly irrelevant here, just to impose his view that a forum name is 'his chosen name' and again to imply that I did something wrong, instead of admitting I filled him in on his missing knowledge of how to properly address someone and on what "L.S." means. Absolutely disgusting tactic. ]The rest of those messages were not about marketing, they were a clarification of what really happened with Exposure lights' StVZO lights, but also examples of what happens to companies trying to get an approval, issues with KBA and other authorities, issues with testlabs etc. Just throwing that away means throwing away information that could simply be of interest to others, and of use to companies trying to get into this market, and is not OK. As I said, instead of just deleting you could put those into a new thread if the original unedited and trashed messages are still in your system.As a moderator, I certainly have the option to decide whether to move a message or a set of messages to a new thread, but such a task requires more of my (unpaid) time to do when the goal is to preserve existing threads and keep them on track. It went off track when Marcturus started talking about Exposure and you (I assume you are the Wouter S. that Marcturus referred to) followed his lead off the trail and ended up in the brambles. It didn't add nearly as much as you thought it did to the thread.
=== [ Comment: I didn't 'follow his lead off the trail', I clarified that this person was not from Exposure (which is of general interest to those reading the forum and that particular thread!), and added only a few more bits of information in that first reply. Only after Marcturus' response to that, did the messages get a bit off topic, but still only partially offtopic for that thread. My messages added various information that this moron can't even understand are of interest to other readers [ and quite a few of the bits of information I gave in them were actually on topic for the person who was looking for a lens designer, as I gave information on the pitfalls of an StVZO approval such as issues with KBA itself and testlabs! ] and which he removed as he thought it didn't add much. His impression was not only wrong but then he tries to make it seem as if I imagined it wrong, that there was nothing much added and thus nothing interesting was lost. What an a-hole! Note that accusing someone else of what they do themselves, is typical for anti-social people, such as psychopaths, but autists do this too, they are not very different from psychopaths in lots of aspects. He also doesn't understand that a thread is not just there for the thread starter, but is public, i.e. of general interest. Messages there should be treated this way, and just throwing away posts/information because he doesn't want to do more effort is a sign of an incompetent moderator. I don't care that he's unpaid for it, that doesn't change anything, it would have cost almost no time to move the messages to a new thread. ]
What a complete and utter moron and dickhead! This guy is almost certainly also autistic like 'virgil', as you can see from his emotionless text, his inability to comprehend the normal/customary way to address someone, and then trying to give me a lecture while not understanding the facts at all. One more thing you might think of that this idiot doesn't is the following: as the original poster wanted PMs from or suggestions for a lens designer, this means all posts by others could be considered off-topic and pointless for the thread starter. With this line of reasoning of everything having to be on topic, this 'alaric' should have removed all replies and locked the thread... Of course he is not smart enough to realise the implications of the original poster's message and strict rule following, just like 'virgil' didn't understand that his strict interpretation of what is 'blinding', i.e. as being completely physically blinded, was in contradiction with me writing 'blinded more'. Messages on forums are always a mixture of on-topic and off-topic, meant for the thread starter but also others, and autists are unable to grasp such things.
As noted on my bike lighting pages, a problem on many websites and esp. forums is people who want you to conform to their reality, or rather their insanity. Such people want to force their opinions on you, similar to what psychopaths do (Their view and actions are: everything is always someone else's fault, the others must change, the others caused the failure of a company that went bankrupt, etcl., and to fix the problems everyone else must do what he suggests, to make things better. There is no introspection, no self correction). Autists are simple rule followers, they cannot deal with complexity, they can only deal with order and anything else makes them irritated, but when that happens, their words, written or spoken, still sound emotionless.
You can see the autism in 'Alaric', he wants to enforce his view that a forum name is a real name which is insane but it's his rule, so he gets upset (and yet his writing is still emotionless so you have to deduce this from the rest he writes) when someone shows him what is normal that doesn't fit his rule-world-view. He then tries to make me accept that view with an inane argument about political correctness which doesn't apply (and even if it did, I don't do political correctness, as it is wrong, it is pushing through an agenda of 'the right to not feel offended' which is moronic, nobody has such rights and certainly should not be given such rights as the political correctness insanity is trying to do). Autists can't properly argue just as anti-social people can't properly argue which is why I consider them morons. The reason they can't properly argue has to do with understanding other people which they can't (autists) or don't care to (anti-social people). This is the subject of a project I'm working on that I will publish soon...
To recognise autists is easy: Look for the emotion in what they say or write. If there is none then it's likely an autist. A psychopath also writes emotionless but anti-social. Everything such a person writes exudes "I'm an a-hole, I don't care about anyone else".
In meetings autists behave as if they are rude (interrupting others when it's inappropriate etc.) though they perceive it as normal 'logical' behaviour. Curiously though they are in a sense emotionless (i.e. to the outside), they are not logical people, and that is because similarly to anti-social people they reason/argue to towards what they themselves want and towards what they think/assume what needs to be done or towards what is correct, which is often not correct at all (and that has to do with not understanding other people, not properly self-correcting, etc. which are all related as I found when I analysed this). So they are no mr. Spock...
When you tell an autist he is wrong or criticise him for saying something unfriendly or stupid, you can get 3 types of responses or lack thereof:
- No response. They disregard your view as a view (and one that is of no importance to them). They generally don't self-correct which is an essential part of competency which they don't have because of inability to properly argue and a few other factors. (This is also part of the project I'm working on)
- A response that is emotionless, not showing any sign of self correcting, not anything that shows to be a real apology. The response can even turn things around like anti-social people do, accusing you of doing something wrong. Those type of people are more anti-social than the average autist. [ This is the case for 'alaric', which is shown by accusing me of doing something wrong (reversing the issue is typical for anti-social people), and by ending his message with 'thanks'. Why would you end a message with thanks? Think about it, and then read on... See the answer further on. ]
- An apology, but without any sign that they understand that they did something wrong. This is an interesting one, as this means that that is an autist who has had training on how to deal with people: When they realise someone is irritated by their comments, such people then apologise to keep the situation from escalating, but in their apology they don't specify anything that shows they realise that they made some mistake, and that to me is irritating, it's a fake apology! So that just annoys me even more...
The answer as to why someone who has been criticised says 'thanks': This is to sound rational, logical, to seem to be above 'retaliatory' replies, when in fact that is what he tries to do (But he fails in that. A warning to autists and psychopaths: Do not try to argue with me on an invalid point, because I will see all the errors and contradictions in your reasoning and show how stupid/incompetent you are).
Autists who are not that anti-social can reply in writing something critical in return, something like 'sorry' as if they didn't want to give criticism, but had to give criticism. This fails too (it's not an apology, and the criticism is invalid) as you can see e.g. with the idiotic response by Dirk Strothman from Magnic lights, who said my review of the Magnic lights was bad, wondered whether I do my other reviews in the same way as with the Magnic lights (which I did because more effort was not worth it), then ends (that section) with a 'sorry'. In reality this guy was on my website, could have looked through a few reviews, didn't do that, then assumes what I do in other reviews. If he had any reasoning ability at all, he would have realised that I did all the effort needed for those lights, any more was not worth it because the integration of generator and light right beside the rim of which a lot of light can and does get blocked by tyres, is a stupid idea.
You see psychopaths often at the head of big companies, e.g. Gerlach "The liar" Cerfontaine who used to be the head of airport Schiphol, is a psychopath. Some psychopaths have training to deal with people. Someone I know works at the bank Rabobank, and I asked whether he knew the head of the bank (well, the part of the bank that he works in) and whether that guy is a psychopath. The answer: Yes, I met him, he is a psychopath, he doesn't care about anyone, but he has had people-training to make him look less of an a-hole than he really is... He did say the head of the entire bank seems ok, which would be (if correct) a surprising difference as such people are very often anti-social.
In dealing with autists and psychopaths, I purposely annoy them and test them. I pretend not to know something for example, which gives a certain reaction. Sometimes I haven't thought yet about what a person is like, and then if I make a mistake in something then if such a person is autistic of a psychopath, that becomes clear almost instantly as their response to a mistake is of course the same as when feign ignorance or of not knowing something. I.e. the response to a mistake or apparent abscence of knowledge gives me information, tells me whether or not a person is autistic or a psychopath. The way someone responds to that is in such cases then usually dismissive of anything else I say. The naming of R113 instead of R112 was a mistake, caused the autist 'virgil' to think he is superior in knowledge and understanding when in fact it is the reverse, and his reply then tells me exactly what he is like. I did it on purpose e.g. on a trip in Ukraine, with a female doctor who was from her behaviour and expressionless face, a psychopath. I was talking to her and she asked "Are you a psychologist?", because she knew I was analysing her (doctors get a basic training in psychology), and a bit further in the conversation she mentioned types of personality. I didn't give a damn about that, it doesn't interest me, everyone can be as they like, do what they want to do, as long as they behave properly and as long as they are not manipulating other people. I had heard a little about but I said I didn't know and that it sounded interesting (when in fact it didn't interest me at all). This gave me exactly the result I needed, she felt superior, assumed I knew nothing and she behaved exactly as a psychopath does, treating other people who are not in the same 'group' that might be needed for recognition of status, as worthless. This was quite amusing! I've done this more with autists and anti-social people, and the results are always the same... If you're interested, here is my psychological analysis of this woman which is an example of proper psychological analysis.
Final note, how to deal with such people: Any discussions with autists and psychopaths (and in general this is the case for a-holes even if they are not as anti-social as a psychopath) are a waste of time. Once you recognise a person as such, just stop, or you could tell him that you see he is autistic or anti-social, and that further talk or correspondence with him would be a waste of (your!) time because of that fact.
Addition 2020-2-14: Thank you to a reader of my site, he sent me the link to the ECE rules which are freely available after all. I and others had searched before and didn't find the rules except from paid sources, I guess I could have asked the UN but this was never an area of much interest to me so I assumed from these paid sources that they are not freely available similar to DIN/TA/BS etc. not being freely available... In any case this is the link to find R112 and R113: https://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs101-120.html.
To get the other regulations, I had to search a bit (I did some URL guessing first but I wanted to see if these were not hidden links), knowing they were there and possibly not hidden links, I found them via the rather non-obvious names (thank you UN for hiding this stuff so well!): Go to https://www.unece.org/trans/main/welcwp29.html, then on the left menu click on Agreements and Regulations, then on UN Regulations (1958 Agreement), then on UN Regulations (Addenda to the 1958 Agreement) and then finally you will see the choice for:
Regs 0-20 Regs 21-40 Regs 41-60 Regs 61-80 Regs 81-100 Regs 101-120 Regs 121-140 Regs 141-160
See also my page on ECE R113.
|To email me go to the email page|
Last modified: 2020-4-1