Funny.. I thought it was only two weeks ago a moderator confirmed, I wasn't the person you were talking about.
Though, hello again origin. Have anything constructive to add, aside ad hominems?
Are you the site cynic?Trust me, they are not. Are you the jester of the site?
Said the site cynic in response to the observation that folks like Grumpy, origin, James R and exchemist are all excellent sources of free information about science. Stuff you have pay tuition and fees to actually learn.It's just that your statement is so laughable, there is nothing worth a buck than what they're worth, half the time.
They have expertise. I always say: give credit where credit is due. It's certainly a good cure for cynicism.They can apply themselves, but this is few and far between.
It's certainly not about being cynical about being science literacy.If that is what you call ''service''... then you don't know what science is about.
You opened by passing the blame from the antagonists to the good guys. But way to blame me for that.By the way, it totally isn't.
What you are arguing it is totally acceptable to ... as the expression goes, ''pass the buck.''
The cranks are a fact of life. They have nothing to do with me, nor am I engaged in any acts. Perhaps you meant speech.The cranks are not a valid excuse, only an explanation for your acts.
If you were so concerned about being reasonable you would stop being cynical and focus your complaints on the cranks, noting that they are the enemies of reason.There is a big difference between the two. You can act like a totally reasonable person when you want to be.
This is speech, not action. At present I am speaking to your desire to cast blame on the good people of this site.You can't blame anyone else for your actions
Not sure what that's a reference to, but wherever your posts run counter to first principles of math and science, you should expect feedback from the folks who are freely giving you what it would cost you tens of thousands of dollars to get through formal education.just like how recently I took the bait off of a poster in the physics section and I expect a punishment for it now.
Now that you've blamed everyone else, that rings pretty hollow.I won't blame anyone else... but myself.
Who am I talking about? I thought I was no ignore?
Lol, yes, you are definitely "no ignore"!Who am I talking about? I thought I was no ignore?
Are you the site cynic?
I will take it, from my last post, you were sensative enough to write a big long wall of words I personally have no patience on... based pretty much on how I have met you. Sorry... but you are actually that unimportant to me.
This stated goals of the site are intelligent conversation. You may or may not be here for that purpose. But certainly if you were here for that purpose you would want to distance yourself from cranks. You would express solidarity with the science-literate folks, and engage in some topic of math or science without having them remind you too much about first principles. So far that doesn't seem to be panning out for you.
You're a negative player on these boards
Grumpy (and about a dozen or two like-minded folks) are a free technical consult. Elsewhere you'd have to pay to get such advice.
there are many negative posters here who just come to argue with other posters, rather than actually debating the content.
That's entirely the fault of the cranks and crackpots who have no intent of rehabilitating themselves, much less following the actual content of a topic. What you've posted illustrates one of the tenets of crankdom: disparagement of the innocent -- which is often supplemented by praise of the guilty.
May I ask, DMOE, why you profess to be so blissfully unaware of the Common characteristics of cranks?May I ask, Aqueous Id, if "one of the tenets of crankdom: disparagement of the innocent" -- may be preceded by or prefaced by this "praise" you speak of?
May I also ask how you are so aware of these "tenets of crankdom"?
Do you you have any Links to these "tenets of crankdom", or any other evidence to support your assertions?
Aqueous Id said:This stated goals of the site are intelligent conversation. You may or may not be here for that purpose. But certainly if you were here for that purpose you would want to distance yourself from cranks. You would express solidarity with the science-literate folks, and engage in some topic of math or science without having them remind you too much about first principles. So far that doesn't seem to be panning out for you.
This stated goals of the site are intelligent conversation. You may or may not be here for that purpose. But certainly if you were here for that purpose you would want to distance yourself from cranks. You would express solidarity with the science-literate folks, and engage in some topic of math or science without having them remind you too much about first principles. So far that doesn't seem to be panning out for you.
Well that was rather Freudian!Lol, yes, you are definitely "no ignore"!![]()
…but then there is GG, roscoe and anew….
I tend to agree with origin that it would be nice to weed out some of the more obvious rubbish from the science sections, but I see you seem to be on the case.....
Very pleased to note roscoe's departure. Well merited and a good call by whichever mod was responsible. One or two more need excretion I think to raise the tone. But give it time…...
May I ask, DMOE, why you profess to be so blissfully unaware of the Common characteristics of cranks?
Do you have any links to some other set of characteristics DMOE?
- Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
- Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
- Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
- Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
DMOE, do you disagree that these tenets are common to cranks of all stripes?
DMOE, may I ask if you believe in the existence of cranks?
Do you not think we have more than our fair share of cranks right here on Sci DMOE?
DMOE, why or why not?
Let me quote Aqueous Id, his comment seems appropriate in relation to you as well:
This stated goals of the site are intelligent conversation. You may or may not be here for that purpose. But certainly if you were here for that purpose you would want to distance yourself from cranks. You would express solidarity with the science-literate folks, and engage in some topic of math or science without having them remind you too much about first principles. So far that doesn't seem to be panning out for you.
DMOE, does this help any?
Cranks make having rational discourse on certain topics somewhere between difficult and impossible, they show up, trash the thread with their pet theories, and kill any and all conversation that might have been occuring.
Wow. That was probably the most loquacious way of saying absolutely nothing that I have ever encountered. But than again, what else should I expect of The Dumbest Man On Earth, right?You may, Randwolf.
And my answer would be that I have never "profess(ed) to be so blissfully unaware of the Common characteristics of cranks".
Irrelevant.
I cannot agree or disagree - I am not sure that "cranks of all stripes" follow any prescribed "tenets".
There are many things manifest in existence that I do not care to "believe in" - "cranks", "prejudice", "labeling", "stereotyping" and "making assumptions", just to name a few.
"Fair share"?
This is an Internet Forum - and this is the year 2014 - please define : "fair share"?
See ^^above^^!
So...is there some kind of "Gang Mentality" or "If you are not with us - you are against us, mentality" at play on this Forum?
It does not help me "any" in getting answers to the questions that I asked of Aqueous Id.
Did it "help" you in any way?
Very pleased to note roscoe's departure. Well merited and a good call by whichever mod was responsible. One or two more need excretion I think to raise the tone. But give it time…...