On Dec 18, 7:32 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 5:01 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 17, 12:39 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 17, 7:08 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Thoughtful replies are solicited on the points of science in the
> > > > article; but replies that are just posturing, or chest beating, are
> > > > not welcomed.  Other posts of mine this year can be accessed via the
> > > > links following the article.
>
> > > Thoughtful replies are often harsh critiques. How do you (personally)
> > > tell the difference between a thoughtful, harsh critique and posturing
> > > or chest beating?
>
> > > PD
>
> > PD, thanks for asking!  Posturing relates to WHO you are, or WHO you
> > quote or stand for.  It seldom, if ever, mentions actual science that
> > can be openly discussed.  Rather, it takes a position that an issue is
> > beyond review.  Those who posture avoid mentioning any point of
> > science; nor do they state their points of agreement or disagreement
> > with enough depth that their ideas can be critically evaluated, too.
>
> > I want my ideas to be critically evaluated; though I'm not seeking
> > anyone's votes!  The TRUTH isn't an issue up for a vote, but the truth
> > is up for discussion.  When someone just says, "WRONG" without
> > explaining why, that person will not get a reply from me.  The
> > majority of your many replies to my earlier posts relate to the
> > strength of your personality vs. the strength of mine.  While you may
> > get pleasure in showing how "strong" you are, you do so at the expense
> > of discussing science.  If you will expose what you know about
> > science, and don't try to "win" by being more indomitable than me,
> > then, I "might" begin to respect you.  Why don't you give objective
> > science a try?  You might like it!
>
> Point of clarity: In science, the truth is not determined by
> discussion, by force of logic, or by mathematical proof. The truth is
> determined by confrontation with observations of nature in controlled
> experiment. Lack of familiarity of the experimental evidence would be
> a distinct disadvantage on your part. Lack of interest in becoming
> familiar with the experimental evidence would be foolishness on your
> part.
>
> PD

Dear PD:  Your negativity continues to outshine any points of
science.  You only argue procedures, and that amounts to posturing--
because it is your way of dominating; i.e., your personality against
mine, as if 'that' somehow determines what is TRUTH in science.  You
manifest those things by continuing to shift the subject of discussion
away from the subject of my post, and onto YOUR IDEAS about how
science is done.  Show me where it is written, other than by you, that
science must conform to your ideas.  But you can't do that, nor
anything else positive for that matter.  Therefore, you will get only
cut and paste replies from me in the future.  Save both of us a lot of
time by never replying to my posts again.  You aren't a "scientist",
you are just a pompous pest! -- NoEinstein --