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
Sorry About That!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on March 29, 2002 15:11:12 UTC

To "the empty void",

"...What I notice is that it is impossible to set up a self consistent closed system of concepts which do not obey those particular laws. A rather surprising result..."

You noticed that, did you? Did you prove it
or give good evidence for it?

I don't know! I am opinionated but not very knowledgeable! If you depend on authority for your opinions, don't bother reading what I have to say. If you can understand what I say, then make up your own mind.

drdick wrote:
"Everyone thinks differently and in order to understand someone, you have to be able to shift your frame of reference when dealing with that individual as what they mean by what they say is a very personal code. When someone tries to avoid such identification, the most common way of handling the result is to categorize their comments as "noise". Most of life is sound a fury signifying nothing so you have to learn to ignore it; by taking the tack you have chosen, you have essentially chosen not to contribute."

That's quite a pantload. Your colorful logic in this is more exotic and unconventional than any porn site:

Sorry, but I can't find much in that line! If you are trying to be funny, it's a little slapstick for me; kind of hits me along the same lines as the three stooges.

1) So following this logic you won't read a journal unless you have become acquainted with each author's style.

Now that comment can only be described as stupid! If you check journals, you should find that they are extremely limited as to how ideas are allowed to be expressed. In fact, I would say the style is so constrained that who the author is has no significance to speak of when it comes to interpretation. You are not dealing with individuals, you are dealing with academies.

2) To you, there is no scientific protocol which makes the author's name less important. That's why you don't like my posts.

No! I don't like your posts because I get nothing out of them. I read everything on this forum and most of it is pretty thoughtless; but you exceed the rest.

3) And the fact that you actually DO know my identity does not change your complaint that you do NOT know my identity.

Well, if I do know your identity, I am sorry. I thought the people I knew were better behaved. I personally would classify most of your posts as graffiti.

4) And because of this, you claim I have not contributed.

I only know my reaction. I personally have found very little of value in most of your posts. That leads me to scan them very quickly and, if you do have something worth saying I am afraid I am apt to miss it. Now I have a strong feeling that I read more than most so I suspect that, when you do have something to say worth saying (and I think everyone does) chances are it will be overlooked.

A-a-ah, Shaddup ! (smile)

Ok! I won't criticize you anymore!

Have fun -- Dick

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