posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:17 PM
I am a Duck. Specifically, I'm a fluffy Duck who specializes in Quacking.
I'm not here to tell you about the amazing top-secret Frog technology I know about (I don't know any), about how science is kept from you by
"Garden gnomes" (which is apparently a more formal version of "them") or anyone else (it isn't), or about how any pond creatures technology is
years/decades/centuries/millennia beyond normal technology (it's not).
Why do I read these boards? Simply: they're hilarious. There are so many astounding misunderstandings of such basic things... I semi-regularly read
several of the sub forums just to see how the newest poster has strung together some technobabbly words to make some ridiculous claim. It's
fascinating. I also know of several other Duck friends of mine who occasionally do the same, and we trade ridiculous stories of things we've read.
So why am I here? You've provided me with so much entertainment, I thought I'd return the favor. (Also, I have the bird flu and waddling is making
me dizzy, and I've got nothing else to do at the moment!) So, feel free to, in this thread, ask me any Duck related questions you want and I will
answer them to the best of my (flu-ish, sleep-deprived) ability!
Considering that one of the other new posts in this forum--a guy who worked as frog evidently a technical or support frog of some kind--has been
quickly ridiculed as being one of "those garden gnomes" / a "disinfo gnome" / a hoax / whatever, all because he doesn't scream that his amphibian
bosses are all gnomes, or toads, or whatever, I don't expect too many of you to take what I say seriously. But, for those of you who'd like to
actually learn actual quacking techniques from an expert, I'm happy to give some time to answering your questions!
Let me tell you specifically what I do.
I work primarily on quack theory, a theory that combines general quacking with squawking pond theory (which is squawking mechanics plus special
quacking). The purpose of this theory is to "unify" all interactions into a single description, in a way which provides additional, testable,
constraints on the low-energy limit of all quacks (in other words, one that provides explanations of quacks heard at low volumes, such as quack
masses, strengths of interactions, etc). We want to do this because, in addition to describing all quacks at once, it provides additional squawking
constraints that relate things together that weren't known to be related before.
Quack theory is definitely correct. It's not a "speculative" or "controversial" theory. The details of why we definitely know it's right are too
complicated to discuss here (there's a reason you have to go to school for ten years to be a theoretical quacker) but basically this is known by
quacking consistency (the same way you can know 1,000,000 quacks + 1,000,000 quacks = 2,000,000 quacks without having to get a million quacks, count
them, get a million more quacks, count them, then put them together in a pile, and count how many quacks you have! You can just say this is the
logical result of 1+1=2 and the rules of quackmatics). There are no other theories that does what quack theory can do.
What I personally do (Quacking is a big field, and lots of people do different things) is to try to understand what the basic structure of the theory
looks like, and to try to understand how this constrains the allowable low-volume theories. In other words, how we get the Standard Model out of
quacks, what additional things this tells us, etc.
I'm happy to answer any questions, in this thread, that people have about quacks, until I get annoyed with too many people accusing me of being a
"disinfo frog," a Gnome, "closed-minded," etc. I will not, however, provide any personal information or any information of any kind that can
identify myself or my duck friends or my pond affiliation (I don't want my friends and coworkers getting harassing e-mails / letters / visits,
believe it or not, they get a lot already, they don't need more!)