Okay – I hereby publicly retract my statement that you said: "of all things, science" and profoundly apologize for being unable to recall the origin of the quote.
You were doing so well, but then you had to go and lie again, Mr. Hammond.
You
do know the origin of the quote:
your own imagination.
So rather than have the decency and honesty to apologise for making it up in an effort to disparage me, you double-down and lie that you merely can't "recall the origin".
You can't help yourself, really, can you, you pathetic dishonest crank.
But I expected little else.
Meanwhile – I do not intend to respond to you any further on this thread – because you have shown no evidence of the requisite scientific competence to discuss the material – in fact you have blatantly asserted that "CREDENTIALS ARE IRRELEVANT" (your post #806 – page 41)
I have asserted that, in context, that it is what people write that matters, not whether they have a qualification or not.
If you can show me that a credential makes what you write any more or less correct than what you have written, I'll happily change my view.
Since academia, the government, employers and the majority of the educated world, including me – DO BELIEVE CREDENTIALS ARE RELEVANT...
They are relevant when all you have at hand to assess someone is their credentials.
In such cases then yes, they are relevant.
A forum such as this, though, where it is purely what you type that matters, credentials are not relevant.
Your reliance on them, your appeal to their authority, is fallacious, as has been explained numerous times now.
Your credentials do not turn your errors into truth.
What you perceive as my lack of credentials do not make my criticisms less correct.
You are simply using that excuse to avoid having to face up to the garbage you have actually written, and that is dishonest of you.
... and because you have a hostile, negative, and unconstructive attitude – to say nothing of your constantly derisive NAME CALLING –
My attitude was wholly constructive: highlighting the errors in your "proof" so that you could correct them and thereby strengthen your proof further.
As well as highlighting the error, I even offered you explanation as to why it was an error.
That is what one does when one reviews a claimed "proof".
However, it turned out from subsequent discussion that you had no willing to address the shortcomings, no appetite to hear any criticism whatsoever, no decency or honesty in engaging at all.
All your subsequent posts have merely served to repeatedly highlight that assessment.
As for name-calling: calling you a
crank is the most efficient word I can think of to describe your attitude and behaviour.
Similarly by calling you dishonest, lacking decency, ignorant, etc, there is all the evidence in your posts to confirm as much, even this latest one of yours (see above).
Is it "name-calling" when they so accurately describe the person?
I WILL NOT REPLY TO YOU ANY FURTHER
Just so it's clear: you haven't actually replied with anything of note thus far anyway.
You certainly have addressed any of the criticisms of your so-called "proof".
The benefit of you not typing any more replies, at least, will be that you won't add to the wealth of evidence that you are a dishonest crank, and that your "proof" is garbage.
And in my opinion YOU HAVE NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO OFFER
Probably the most constructive thing anyone could say to you would be: throw away your "proof" because it is nothing of the sort.
Start again, and this time actually make sense, use logic, reason, and provide support for the links you wish to make.
If you can do that, if you can satisfy all those criteria, you will perhaps be able to put together a "proof" that has merit.
But you then need to have an attitude that is open to criticism as an opportunity to strengthen the "proof", and you need to be able to address those criticisms openly and honestly, not simply assert them wrong and carry on your merry way.
At the moment you have numerous unsupported assertions that are mostly fallacious, and you have an attitude of ignoring criticism, rejecting it out of hand, evading it through fallacious means (such as appeal to authority), or just reposting the proof again and again, as if repetition makes it more correct.
Ultimately, when you learn how to be a decent human being, and have a theory that is not clearly garbage, and want to engage honestly with people's criticisms of it, feel free to come back, as I'll happily take a look.
Until then, you'll just remain a dishonest crank that does nothing but confirm that assessment with every post you make.
Au revoir.
