Back to Home

General Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Misc. Topics | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
That Is A Worthless Post!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on January 10, 2005 17:53:41 UTC

Yeh, and that's exactly why I am so suspicious that I am talking to Harv! You appear to be doing the same thing he does all the time:

1.Quote a comment out of context.
2.Make the dumbest interpretation of it that he can possibly think of.
3.Then claim his off the wall interpretation is what I am saying.

In the comment you chose to display above, you totally omit the fact that "the phenomena to be modeled" has to be specific explanation! The general model makes no constraint on the labels being used; all it says is to apply a set of labels. The only way we can have a "specific mapping of labels" to talk about, there must be a specific set of B's with specific elements to label. That implies one has a specific C to explain. The whole situation is meaningless in the absence of a explanation to model. Intentional or not, your interpretation is obviously a direct confusion of the "woods for the trees". Harv just plain enjoys doing that kind of thing. He likes to pretend he can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

There is an important issue being discussed in the paragraph you quote which will never be comprehensible to you so long as the ramifications of the model are beyond your ability to logically analyze. If you cannot easily switch between the general model and a specific use of the model then you have no mental mechanism examine the consequences of any internal relations. Either you are just pulling my leg or you cannot even keep the definition of the model straight in your mind.

And lastly, you also share another attribute of Harv's. He would rather spend his time defending his misinterpretations than try to understand what I am saying. Your comment above seems to take no account whatsoever of my earlier attempts to clear things up. I don't think understanding what I am saying is even on your agenda. As I have already said to Harv, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice , shame on me".

I don't think I am going to respond any further it appears to be a waste of time!!!

If you are not Harv, you are no more intellectually honest than he is!

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins