@ryoung122 

Greetings to you too, Robert.

As I'm sure you will appreciate, it is the responsibility of individuals to conduct themselves in an appropriate way within context. People are, within reason, allowed to state views which might not necessarily align with your own, and your somewhat fanciful attempts to claim to know what I am thinking are not really appreciated. Aquanaut_Chalk was warned, just as you were - there was no difference of treatment and you only have to scroll up a few posts to see this. The fact that you are coming back on here in some apparent attempt to create division is neither professional nor kind. You are not the admin here, and it is not your forum to run. It's quite hypocritical of you to point out "negativity" on our forum, as though a certain forum you frequent doesn't contain swathes of it directed at us. Please try and be more objective, and improve your manners. We do not want to have to put you on official warnings, but it seems as though you are not on here for productive discussion, rather to create division and disunity.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: @ryoung122

↑

@fabri21 Greetings, the Majority Owner of a certain company that you joined informed me that you signed an Agreement with 'exclusivity', meaning that you would no longer be able to supply the GRG with any new cases, documents, or updates. By definition, upon being informed of this I gave the GRG Correspondents Group Chat, of which you were a member of at the time, a two-week notice. Despite more than two weeks passing, you finally left without so much as saying "Goodbye". That was your choice, not mine. I didn't remove you, you voluntarily "left the group" yourself. And I have screenshot evidence. So, no I didn't remove you.

As for the "case validation" of this case, I had nothing to do with it, Waclaw wrote the report and "reviewed it" and picked who he gave "credit" to. I will say this: Emilio Ibanez is a highly esteemed person and you should retract your Comment about him. I think Waclaw used them to make document translations.

Update: we have the birth record and census matches and other documents for this case.

No family permission for public announcement. We may consider an Anonymous option.

@siam Not all English keyboards have the n-ye option.

@admin 

Greetings,

I did not come here to create division, but to state facts.

One of the core concepts of LOGIC is that everything starts from "not assuming". You should not "assume" that I came here to create division.

It's also patently unfair, as you know...you are the Anonymous Admin, whereas I am a public figure. So I am NOT afforded the protections of Anonymity.

I think a lot of people forget that when I founded the World's Oldest People Forum in 2002, I, too, started out as Anonymous. I even signed messages as "Moderator". It was not my purview or desire to make everything about me. It was only when the Wikipedia War against human longevity articles on Wikipedia began in 2007...when Wikipedia claimed that supercentenarians were not notable enough for individual articles...that I felt the need to build myself up as figure as a public expert...because the Wikipedes demanded that no edits could be Original Research and everything had to be sourced to what they deemed a "reliable" source. Thus, it became imperative to make myself known as a "reliable" source.

For those that do not know, the Wiki-War began because of the dispute over the Mary Ramsey Wood article. Some editors, who were NOT in the gerontology field, insisted that she was "120"...when facts showed otherwise. Indeed, research as far back as the 1930s showed that she was about 97-98 years old, based on census matches. Hence, the need to build up the idea that validations were public and reliable. Science itself often validated or invalidated cases in private, and the general public didn't know about it. The only way to turn the tide was to push the idea that validation was required for extreme age claims to be seen as "reliable". And for the most part, whatever people think of me, most organizations doing supercentenarian age validation have bought into this...including Guinness World Records, the GRG, the MPIDR, the IDL, the ESO, LQ, LAS, etc.

However, we still have the "Jeanne Calment switched IDs" conspirators, who also pushed such nonsense as to claim that Kane Tanaka was a double life and even 'supercentenarians do not exist'. Overskepticism is a problem, too..not just longevity mythology. There needs to be a balance.

Whatever people think of me personally, the mission to re-educate the world reader to understand, when they come to sources such as Wikipedia, that the maximum observed human lifespan is age 122 needs to continue.

@fabri21 

Greetings,

I always say "you can contact me privately" because, really, I believe that RESPECT should begin with one-on-one conversations.

The laws of physics mean it is literally impossible for everyone to have the same perspective on everything.

In China, there is a philosophy called "70% right, 30% wrong". It means that nearly everyone is partly right, and partly wrong, and the way to solve problems is to find areas of agreement. Each side needs to give something.

Others may not agree, but I don't actually believe that I am 'prideful' or that is an issue. As I pointed out, when I started the World's Oldest People Group in 2002, I was so shy, I used the word "Moderator" to post messages anonymously. Because it wasn't about me...it was about the ideas. I recognized that we needed a place where newspaper articles and other sources on persons claiming extreme longevity could be time/date-stamped. For those not familiar, Yahoo Groups in 2002 was the world's #1 social media platform. Facebook didn't exist yet. Even MySpace didn't exist yet. Yahoo Groups was IT. And Yahoo Groups, which was built on the E-Groups platform, used very secure technology. Every message posted was time/date-stamped, and every post was up 'forever' and for all to see. At that time, there was no Twitter. People were more respectful then and focused on just the message: Person X claimed to be age 117 in year 1917, for example. A lot of the early posts came from old-fashioned hand-cranked news reels, such as from the New York Times. At that time, the internet was 'new' and in order to get people to believe in it more, they made things stay up permanently and reliably. That was good if someone wished to build a message board on a topic area such as supercentenarians. And yes, even before me was Louis Epstein, who kept track of supercentenarians on his own message boards. Louis Epstein himself started that in 1991, after Guinness World Records cancelled the "National Longevity Recordholders" lists from their annual book (at the time, Guinness wanted to move from academic to entertainment focus...more bright colors, more sports, more singers, etc).

A lot of this happened before you were even born.

I think, in some ways, it's a privilege to start when there are established fields, rather than just uncharted territory. That said, you had the pioneer spirit to co-found projects such as the Latin American Supercentenarians. I give credit where due: good job on that. You brought credibility to an area that is challenging, with a mix of true and false cases. This continued the work that I helped to pioneer with GRG validations such as Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan (114 in 2004) and Maria Capovilla (116 in 2006). It was clear to me, early on, that some Latin American cases were true, but were being missed...in part due to institutional lack. For example, the Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan family contacted the GRG after seeing the GRG in the Los Angeles Times, which had a large Latin American distribution. Likewise, the Maria Capovilla case, which came from Guinness World Records, had been missed because Ecuador was not part of the major "Newswires" and local reports about her birthdays didn't show up in Google search, although they were printed in Guayaquil.

Today, we have the Guinness "Oldest Living Man" being from Venezuela, and a case researched by you and others as a team.

Don't forget that Louis Epstein, the original GRG person Dr. Coles tasked with tracking supercentenarians, did NOT give persons individual case credit...he just listed cases and the footnotes would say "authorities said"...I sent Louis Epstein over 100 cases to the GRG in 1999, yet he gave me ZERO credit. It was Dr. Coles who realized that the GRG needed a better data organization who promoted me in 2002 to become the new leader of the GRG supercentenarian data. And I coined the term "supercentenarian database" and pushed this idea in the Wall Street Journal in 2004. That reporter, Jeffrey Zaslow, is no longer alive.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/books/jeffrey-zaslow-best-selling-author-dies-at-53.html

As we get older, we become aware that our mortal bodies fail (Dr. Coles passed away in 2014), but our legacy is in part defined by what we leave behind, the work we did.

One of my goals for this new 'field' was to help establish it. Wikipedia naysayers continued to claim that "Age alone cannot confer Notability" and to delete important articles on supercentenarians. That was a major reason I pushed the need for places to keep this information save from haters. I think,if we look past personal differences, we can all agree that, for example, the Oldest Living Man being from Venezuela is a net positive in many ways...including the recognition of Juan Vicente Perez Mora, current Oldest Living Man from Venezuela:

https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/press-release/2022/5/venezuelas-juan-vicente-mora-is-worlds-oldest-living-man-aged-112-years-704243

Let's not forget that if we go back to 1988, before the World Wide Web launched, Guinness World Records, after the death of Florence Knapp, 114, initially named Maren Bolette Torp, 111, as the Oldest Living Person...before giving the title to a 112-year-old American, then a 113-year-old French woman (Jeanne Calment), then to a woman said to be even older (Carrie White). As Guinness World Records itself said in 1986, no area was more subject to deceit, vanity, and deliberate fraud than the subject of human longevity. So it was an incredible challenge. One of the goals of Guinness World Records turning to the Gerontology Research Group for assistance was to minimize the risk of naming the wrong person as "Oldest Living Person". It was important to "get it right" if at all possible. And while it's not 100% certain 100% of the time, in the past 23 years of being the gerontology consultant for Guinness World Records, we have made massive improvements. The risk of naming the wrong person is much less (though not completely eliminated...still a chance for a surprise candidate to come forward), and the understanding of human longevity...the maximum human lifespan...has been greatly improved.

That said, just when it seemed that all was well, since then the field has had to battle the anti-supercentenarian nonsense on Wikipedia, the 2018 conspiracy against the Jeanne Calment case, and the proliferation of YouTube videos spouting longevity falsehoods. It seems that every time "Truth" has prevailed, turmoil breaks apart things again. Oh well, that is the Law of Entropy...a tendency towards Disorder. But we can strive to make things the best we can.

While you are no longer a GRG Correspondent, the GRG appreciates the work you did for the almost 3 years of volunteer service. And it served as a learning experience and step towards greater success in your current endeavors.

So I wish that you will continue in the Greater Good mission to:

1. Bring the honors to the real supercentenarians

2. Validate cases based on facts

3. Promote the idea that validated data can be built on a worldwide scale.

And it may surprise you, but I was excited to see that you got to meet 116-year-old persons, in person. It's like a sports fan meeting their favorite players...but then you realize these are real people. They are human. I remember, I even went to several supercentenarian funerals, and to see the body in the casket can hit hard when one had known someone for several years. But then we move on to the next person. As sand through the hourglass falls, time marches on. The Conveyor Belt of Life continues. When I started tracking supercentenarians the World's Oldest Person was born in 1873, and someone born in 1907 was just 80 years old. Mind-boggling to think that, all this time later, 1907 is now the World's Oldest Person. Unless we find someone else. Indeed, I continue to get claims to extreme age from Latin America...but which ones will be proven correct? Time will tell.

I have more to say but this is a start.

@chrisr 

Chris, your post here is a prime example of "Robert Derangement Syndrome".

Actually, everyone matters. To say that I do not matter is to be hateful. Your post here should have been deleted. It's just another example of Robert Derangement Syndrome.

Beyond that, you have your own liabilities, which you keep hidden. Again, quite unfair...

Also, I am NOT a 'bully'. The definiton of a bully is someone who 'starts picking on others' with the intent to threaten, intimidate, belittle, etc.

I do not 'start' things. I do NOT. I defend against others who start things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taken_(film)

Defending oneself and others from bullies is a reactionary...please don't confuse the two.

But if we are throwing around accusations, you once stated that you were a "millionaire"...was this an implication of an attempt to PROJECT POWER on your part? YES.

I’ve never stated I was a millionaire Robert, such things are irrelevant. 

I have no interest in projecting power but I will call you out for what I believe you are, given the misery you have caused to others.

I don’t hate anyone either, but your perception that others become deranged or similar where you are involved is outrageously misplaced and vain.

You sow discord here when you turn up. Your version of events is rarely truthful and I genuinely feel sorry for you.

Even the other posts you’ve made here about resignations etc - there is no thanks or gratitude for what those people have given you. That’s where you should have started , irrespective of how it’s ended.

I’ll apologise to the members here for a negative post, but it is necessary to respond to lies.

Go back to your own site Robert and play these same games with Waclaw and all his sock puppets.

Posted by: @ryoung122

↑

@siam Not all English keyboards have the n-ye option.

Writing "Ibanez" is not correct. As well as "ñ" letter is not the same as "n" letter. In fact, the sound is different. The correct and respectful option is to write each name according to the rules of the language it belongs to.

And take into account that all the respectable english-speaking newspapers, such as The Guardian (UK) or The New York Times (USA), write the names correctly, using specific letters as the ñ letter.

Posted by: @ryoung122

↑

One of the core concepts of LOGIC is that everything starts from "not assuming". You should not "assume" that I came here to create division.

I am not assuming. I am deducing.

It's also patently unfair, as you know...you are the Anonymous Admin, whereas I am a public figure. So I am NOT afforded the protections of Anonymity.

Once more, you do not seem to be willing to understand the symbolic meaning of the Admin account here. It represents the entire GSF community and its unity. The Admin account is not run by any single, individual person. The Admin account is all of us together, united.

Whatever people think of me personally, the mission to re-educate the world reader to understand, when they come to sources such as Wikipedia, that the maximum observed human lifespan is age 122 needs to continue.

Then I suggest you focus on improving the GRG and its image instead of spending lengthy amounts of time (and effort) on venting your frustrations and anger on an internet forum that you do not even consider legitimate.

@chrisr I am not here to cause misery to anyone. I bring people facts. If people don't like the truth, that's their issue. The misery they generate begins in their own head. It comes, actually, from an evolutionary problem: most humans are "selfish". When children are asked "who is the greatest mother in the world", most say "my Mom", not think about an objective answer. The point is, evolutionarily speaking, humans, as are animals that evolved in "survival of the fittest" selection pressures, have traits that favor individual selfishness. But there are also collective genes that favor "group collective" selfishness. Most studies show that only 20% of people are independent, objective thinkers that place rationality at the forefront, rather than their personal selection biases.

@siam I'm going to disagree with you. Flatly speaking, it's not correct to insist to have to use non-English diacritical marks in English.

Let me give you an analogy. In English, "Germany" is the name we call a country that doesn't call itself "Germany" but "Deutschland". And the French call it "Allemagne". Are you going to say that the French and English names are "incorrect"? Or do they have the right, in their own language, to use their own terms? Not everyone agrees with this, and you don't have to. But logically speaking, anyone should be able to understand that "within the context" of its own language, "Germany" is correct in English, "Deutschland" is correct in German, and "Allemagne" is correct in French. Likewise, if we demand that English must recognize all non-English diacritical marks, where does it end? Do English speakers need to learn all the languages of the world? Maybe accommodation is made for Spanish due to a large Spanish-speaking population in the USA, but is that also a bit arbitrary? Which languages qualify for "English must accommodate our diacritical marks"?

There is a minor improvement in your decorum on the Forum today Robert, as evidenced in the tone of some of your posts.

However if you do bring people facts, as you are suggesting to me, why do you allow the falsification of validation credits?

It’s unethical as well as untruthful. As an apparent Director of the (apparently unregistered and therefore non existent) entity known as the GRG, use your authority to stop that - or publish additional posts which are correct and fairly reflect the efforts of others.

With respect Robert, that would be a step forward for you personally - and the GRG.

@ryoung122 Don't compare geography (such as countries) with people's names. When you refer to an individual, you have to use his real name and don't change it as you like, just by respect.

Your name is Robert. In spanish, Robert is Roberto. If I call you Roberto, instead of Robert, would you like It? Obviously not. Also, I know people from Latin America whose names are in english, not in spanish. And I would never call them using the spanish version of the name (for instance, using Antonio instead of Anthony). Their names are in english, and I can't change them using spanish.

And again, Ibáñez is not "Ibanez". The pronunciation is different, and "Ibanez" actually doesn't exist. You have to write the name properly and not change it, even if the name contains a foreign letter not used in english.

And in relation to the acommodation for spanish you are talking about, just know that spanish recognises foreign words that come from english (such as the word "w", which is part of the spanish alphabet).

And as I said in another comment, English-speaking media (all newspapers, TV channels...) write names properly, don't changing them. Here you have an example where a notable British newspaper (The Guardian) writes Ibáñez properly (there are thousands of more examples, and not only with spanish names, but with names of all the languages):

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/books/2023/jul/18/tributes-pour-in-after-spanish-cartoonist-francisco-ibanez-talavera-dies-aged-87-mortadelo-and-filemon