Since when has a rational, logical refutation of bad information been "garbage"?
Because if that is the case, you've just condemned the entire basis of the scientific process.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
Since when has a rational, logical refutation of bad information been "garbage"?
Because if that is the case, you've just condemned the entire basis of the scientific process.
If only that's all it were, that'd be awesome. Unfortunately, it was also offensive, bullying, disparaging, and a personal attack.
So why post? Why do you -- who evidently know little of the subject, and understand even less of the little you have some inkling of -- feel the need to demonstrate to me -- I think fair to say, one of the more knowledgeable monks with regard to threading -- just how useless your home-spun wisdom fairy stories on this subject, as with so many others, really are?
Are you hoping to help me? Or help the OP? Or to ingratiate yourself with me in particular or the monks in general?
Explain how that was "rational, logical refutation of bad information"?
| [reply] |
a personal attack.
Nope. Just a series of questions posed.
Any attack you inferred, was inferred by you in response to your assessment of the possible answers.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
Aside from a couple relevant sentences (which did not in fact show that the post before it was "diametrically wrong on all counts"), what I saw was self-centered insecurity (a belief that sundialsvc4 was explaining something to you) followed by wildly speculative and denigrative questions (which seem more like chest-beating than rational refutation).
| [reply] |
(which did not in fact show that the post before it was "diametrically wrong on all counts"
Perhaps you'd care to demonstrate your threading expertise by giving supporting arguments to his assertions?
a belief that sundialsvc4 was explaining something to you
To whose post did he respond?
Taking a direct reply to me as being addressed to me is "self-centred insecurity"? I think you've (literally) lost the plot.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
