Back to Home

God & Science 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 | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Tsk Tsk

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on January 28, 2002 17:37:21 UTC


I'm very disappointed that you like to take cheap shots considering how well we've been communicating since being here on this particular forum.

***I would think twice before quoting Harv again, especially after last week's embarassing episode. You might be unknowingly indirectly quoting from some high-school student's website.***

You consider the work of reputable people in mechanical engineering as a high-school website?

By the way, I am in no way embarrassed over last week. You are very unclear in your posts (even Alex thought you were looking for a definition of acceleration). Your little quiz was entirely out of context as to your point, and I just happened to misunderstand it enough to believe that you were heading in the direction of reference frames. I found a very helpful website on explaining the context of classical motion as dependent on frames of reference. I was trying to help you in better understanding the concept which I thought is what you misunderstood.

I am willing to admit that I am not a physicist. I have no qualms admitting that. On the other hand, I don't mind debating certain areas of physics - even if I might be wrong - because I know that this presents an opportunity to better understand (which is the reason why I am here by the way).

I'm just disappointed in you Aurino since rather than have a very friendly and challenging series of debates (and discussions) you select to take cheap shots of insulting someone who has been very cordial to you.

I still hold the opinion that if someone is wrong that their opinions can be shown to be in contradiction to the point to where they cannot reconcile their views. This is the standard that I use in determining when someone is close-minded. The evidence is no longer reconcilable and they are left empty. They must either to admit they made a mistake or show obvious signs of being close-minded. Signs of being close-minded include silence (and then later you find that person just beating the same drum), or they make some dogmatic statement and drop the subject (e.g., "I am convinced that you cannot understand my position", "1=existence, 0=non-existence", "you obviously have no understanding of physics", etc).

If you notice, I don't do this. If I am wrong (i.e., proven wrong), then I think I'm big enough just to admit it. If not that, then I at least hope that I can make a statement such as "you know, you made a lot of valid points there, but I still think there is something missing in your argument that I just can't put my finger on. Let me give it some thought, and maybe we can later pick up this theme". The person who has made similar comments is Paul, which puts him on a very high plane of an advanced mature person.

I wish you could take lessons from Paul. I think we all do (including myself).

Warm regards, Harv

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