Paul wrote:
As you know, I have figured out a scheme which makes sense to me and which incorporates Dick's results as a perfectly compatible component. As you also know, people on this forum don't comment much on those ideas when I present them, but when I do present them it is for exactly the same reason. I am sincerely interested in anyone's ideas that will show where my scheme does not make sense."
I'm sorry I neglected that. Will you please post it again soon?
Paul wrote:
"Dick is simply more comfortable commenting on rigorously thought out statements such as you find in mathematics than he is in ordinary speech.
Unfortunately, the Dick of whom we speak most often does not comment rigorously. More than half of his statements on this forum are NOT tight, concise, logical and careful. He tends to ramble, insult, tell stories about his youth
and, despite branding my work with nasty words, has not pointed up the illogic I supposedly have used.
Paul also wrote:
"And, you have to admit that your language is more innovative, colorful, imaginative, and maybe obtuse than most of the posters here."
Not so. Not close. And you ignored the protocol that if my statements are to be branded authoritatively as illogical, it is inadequate to merely say so. The illogic would have to be shown. Dick and you have shown no willingness to wield such authority the way it should be wielded -- in close debate. (btw,Why do you say my language is obtuse? It is unsupported with evidence. After all, I actually have credentials and professional experience as a clear communicator
-- not in journal physics, which has its own
customs but this forum is not a journal of physics. As "God and Science," its
topics would seem to broadly include everyday applications, since everyday experience is the turf of the "applications of God."
As nearly as I can determine, your description of Dick's rhetoric makes no direct claim that his own statements are rigorous and well-worded.
Dick spent tens of thousands of words of rhetorical foam on Harv's vague assertions. If he cannot refute my own statements then his characterization of my statements is both moot and suspect as to motive.
There's more but I think I can just spray it on the lawn.
Warm regards,
Mike
|