Thanks to Trippy

[dumbest man on earth]

Kittamaru, I honestly believe that I cannot and will not "change" neither Trippy's, nor paddoboy's "mind" about anything!

Kittamaru, I honestly believe that no one can or will ever "change" either Trippy's, or paddoboy's "mind" about anything!

Your failure to change my mind does not equate to an inability of my mind to be changed.

1.) - Trippy, you appear to be "...leaving out relevant and known information to give a false impression."
- This is what I actually Posted - the "relevant and known information" - in my Post #32 :

Kittamaru, I, dmoe, Honestly am not trying to "change" anyone's "mind"!

Kittamaru, I honestly believe that I cannot and will not "change" neither Trippy's, nor paddoboy's "mind" about anything!

Kittamaru, I honestly believe that no one can or will ever "change" either Trippy's, or paddoboy's "mind" about anything!

And the following from my Post # 34 :

In that case... why are you posting here at all? If you don't intend to change anyone's mind, or even believe that you can...

To engage in Open, Honest, Earnest and Intelligent Discussion.
Kittamaru, an Open, Honest, Earnest and Intelligent Discussion is not about changing anyones mind.
An Open, Honest, Earnest and Intelligent Discussion may lead to that.
An Argument never will.

Trippy, I respectfully refer you to :

Knowingly posting false or misleading information
15. The intentional posting of false or misleading information is unacceptable. This includes posting half-truths, i.e. leaving out relevant and known information to give a false impression.

It simply means you have so far failed to provide an argument I find compelling.

Trippy, my impetus for registering as a Member on SciForums was only to engage in Open, Honest, Earnest and Intelligent Discussions.

I have no impetus to "provide" any "argument".

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Of course. I find DMOE's implication rather insulting. I find that particularly insulting because as someone like you or I that is trained in science and has a career in science we are changing our minds all the time. I run dozens of experiemnts a year for instance and every single one of them forces me to change my mind about something!

To change the mind of a person on a particular foundational subject that they understand, you better have some pretty damn compelling evidence because no amount of handwaving is going to do the trick!

I can only comment on the "...we are changing our minds all the time..." and the "...me to change my mind..." parts of your Post #36 :
origin, I refer you to these relevant statements from my Post #34 :

To engage in Open, Honest, Earnest and Intelligent Discussion.
Kittamaru, an Open, Honest, Earnest and Intelligent Discussion is not about changing anyones mind.
Only one's self can truly change one's own mind.
An Open, Honest, Earnest and Intelligent Discussion may lead to that.
An Argument never will.

origin, I cannot comment on any of the other content in your Post #36.

 

[paddoboy]

Your failure to change my mind does not equate to an inability of my mind to be changed.

It simply means you have so far failed to provide an argument I find compelling.

What is problematical is the weird interpretation some people seem to put on things.
Someone says something, and the next minute some new amazing interpretation is put on it.
Sometimes I just shake my head in disbelief.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

DMOE, thing is... to engage in honest and open conversation about these topics, especially intelligent conversation, you must either be changing someone elses mind, having your own mind changed, or concurring with someone else.

Kittamaru, I cannot concur with your assessment of what an "especially intelligent conversation" is.
An example : when a person is only conversing in an attempt at "changing someone" else's "mind", an intelligent person may just possibly and correctly perceive that as "Proselytizing".

 

[dumbest man on earth]

people can have an open, honest, and intelligent discussion and still disagree.

This is true, but typically an objective of that discussion is to at least attempt to sway the other side.

Kittamaru, If the "objective of" any member of "that discussion is to at least attempt to sway the other side" - would that not be more correctly referred to as an "Argument", or again, an example of "Proselytizing"?

 

[origin]

i can only comment on the "...we are changing our minds all the time..." and the "...me to change my mind..." parts of your post #36 :
Origin, i refer you to these relevant statements from my post #34 :

ok

origin, i cannot comment on any of the other content in your post #36.

ok

 

[Trippy]

On the one hand DMOE, if you claim to have never tried to change my mind you have no grounds for making a meaningful conclusion. If you're relying on evidence from my interactions with others clearly your sample is biased.

On the other hand, how can you claim to have not tried to change my mind when trying to change my mind forms the core of the interaction where you try and convince me that a particular post from paddoboy is trolling.

 

[leopold]

This is true, but typically an objective of that discussion is to at least attempt to sway the other side.

a good example would be discussing preliminary research results.
this discussion would mainly be about the accuracy of the data and methods of obtaining said data, to flesh out any flaws (or try to).
i doubt if there would be any kind of full blown debate.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Ideally, the forum should be a place for the exchange of information, not a court room.

 

[rpenner]

If you have a problem, don't take science in your own hands .. you take 'em to Science Court.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081916/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124255/
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/ThePeoplesCourt

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Has any of what is described in the following, taken place in the previous 50 Posts in this Thread?

Trolling

18. Trolling is the posting of inflammatory posts with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional (often angry) response. Trolls aim to disrupt normal on-topic discussion, often by raising tangential or irrelevant hot-button issues. Trolling posts are intended to incite controversy or conflict and/or to cause annoyance or offence.

Trolls are damaging to online communities because they attempt to pass as legitimate participants in discussions while actually seeking to disrupt normal conversation and debate. If permitted to remain, trolls tend to reduce the level of trust among members in an online community. One consequence may be that truly naive posts are rejected by sensitised members as just more examples of trolling.

Trolls tend to follow certain patterns of behaviour that may include:
Posting of similar responses and topics repeatedly.
Avoiding giving answers to direct questions put to them.
Never attempting to justify their position.
Demanding proof or evidence from others while offering none in return.
Vanishing when their bluff is called, only to reappear in a different thread arguing the same point.
Deliberately derailing discussions onto tangential matters in order to try to control the flow of discussion.

Just wondering?

 

[krash661]

Has any of what is described in the following, taken place in the previous 50 Posts in this Thread?




Just wondering?

yes ,post #1