Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by OilIsMastery, Dec 6, 2008.
Are you saying that he misquoted you?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
i dont understand it because like i said there are a number of people who do the exact same thing and nothing is even mentioned. as a matter of fact that is ALL they really do. none of this matters to me but it looks like someone is about to get railroaded.
You don't have to misquote someone to misrepresent what they said, I thought I quite clearly explained myself in my first post in this thread. Perhaps you should go back and re-read it, and take the time to actually process and understand it.
If that's the way you genuinely feel, what, precisely have you done about it?
It seemed like an honest assessment to me. I don't see what you are objecting to.
Seeing as how you obviously haven't read my repky to his post, he has completely, ans provably misrepresented what I said, and in doing so completely twisted the meaning if my words in the context of the discussion we were having at the time.
It's also not the first time I have been able to show that he's lied about what I or others have said.
It looks like you're going to fit right in here. They will make you a moderator soon. Just continue to be passive-aggressive, that's the ticket.
Clearly you are trying to provoke a reaction from a moderator with your snide remarks spread across several threads.
You are hereby warned that if you continue to troll in this manner, you will be banned for 1 month.
I think you need to acquire a copy of the DSM IV before attempting to make psychiatric diagnoses over the internet, and look up what it means to be Passive Agressive.
I'm not deliberately ambiguous.
I don't avoid responsibility.
I have no qualms about openly expressing hostility or anger.
I don't fear authority, competition, dependency, or intimacy.
I don't deliberately foster chaos.
I don't habitually lie, obstruct, or procrastinate.
I'm neither haditually sarcastic or stubborn, and I definitely do not willfully obstruct others understanding.
My actions on this forum - explicitly detailing and justifying why I consider OIM's post a lie, and doing so (or at least attempting to do so) in clear, unambiguous english, is actually the opposite of what people with passive agressive personality types do.
Any astronomer you ask might say that Velikovsky's cosmology was rubbish, but his revision of ancient history looks plausible. Any archaeologist* or expert in ancient history you ask might say that his revision of ancient history was rubbish, but his astronomy looks plausible.
That is what Velikovsky was- a plausible rogue who appealed to people who were not trained in the subjects he talked about.
*Actually the one archaeologst I did ask said that Velikovsky's astronomy and ancient history were both rubbish, so it seems that archaeologists are a little more savvy than one might think.
Velikovsky was wrong. No doubt.
The manner in which Velikovsky was 'debated' was also wrong. The opposition used every technique to discredit him other than attacking his arguments. It was a sorry episode in the history of science and not to0 far removed from the treatment of Wegner who was condemned for dabbling in matters beyond his competence when he proposed continental drift.
So the manner in which they debated him indicates nothing about the accuracy of their counterclaims?
Would it have been better if I had just called you a cocksucker?
Does it look better after I edit it, you asshole?
Somehow you just bring out the best in people. Take the pity party elsewhere.
What pity party?
You think i'm interested in yours? You've shown yourself to be unintelligent, and incapable of considering a point of view that isn't yours?
You think i'm interested in offering you any? Get real, I wouldn't waste it.
Oh, and apparently you're unobservant as well, as you seem to have failed to notice that the background of the quote box is gray - unless you intend on editing your post after I reply, but then, that's what screen grabs are for (not to mention the time stamp associated with editing your post).
White on grey doesn't show up very well. Perhaps you should have edited out the color commands.
Why would I do that?
You done trolling yet?
What are you, about 16?
Absolutely nothing. They may have been scientists, but they were debating him as human beings, ignoring the scientific method. Their motivation may have been a combination of fear, egotism, bullying ..... who knows. What was clear was that they did not - by and large - subject Velikovsky's work to a scientific critique. Other's did, eventually, but the initial reaction was a hysterical, knee-jerk explosion.
The counterclaims were independent of this embarrasing nonsense.
Funny you should mention that.
I'm not the one resorting to insults.
I'm also not the one hiding behind white text against a white background.
I agree with you, fortunately, it wasn't this hubris that I was referring to, it was the reasoned work that came out once the hubris had subsided.
Separate names with a comma.