A Sincere Hello to All Fair-Minded Persons,
Yanniru continues to surprise. With the biography he is described as having lived,
I would be prepared to admire and treat his
thoughts with extra consideration. But for
some reason, he continues to make statements
which are sloppy and accusatory and the most surprising thing of all is that, apparently,
he is serious. It is surprising because for
all his boldness in making these accusations,
he almost never has cited evidence. When he
has, it has mostly been sheer farce. But for
readers who have not watched the forum closely
and/or don't know much about science, it could
appear at first that Yanniru's unwarranted accusations had merit.
For example, consider in depth the post he just sent.
In http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/31881.shtml, Yanniru wrote:
Frankly, I still think that Mike's posts are still mostly personal attacks but without the former invective.
Apparently, he does not even read "most" of my posts but does not mind "thinking" they are something without checking it out. Then he accuses "Mike" without citing evidence (which is not present anyway). Ironically, in doing so, Yanniru is personally attacking "Mike" who unlike the person Yanniru addresses here, posts in his real name. That does make it more personal in the sense that "Wandaqueen," who could be anyone, is not risking anything by posting the incoherent comments which Yanniru defends.
Yanniru also writes in the same post:
For example the Mike post you replied to which attacked attack my post had no substance. Your post supplied the substance. And I agree that he then attacked your post even though you supported him with substance.
First Yanniru accuses "Mike" of personal attacks without offering evidence. The "person" Mike supposedly attacks in this instance is anonymous
which makes the "personal" part rather difficult to figure.
Then,l Yanniru writes that Mike "attacked your post (boldface added). Yanniru's implication is that "attacking" a post is the same as "attacking" a person. By "attacking,"
Yanniru apparently meant "criticizing."
So Yanniru is saying that "criticizing a post" containing incoherent content, which was sent by an anonymous person, is the same as "attacking a person." Something is wrong with that. Science largely consists of testing statements. If the statements are incoherent, it may be the rudeness was in publishing them
but instead I simply took them at face value and provided feedback which is pertinent.
Yanniru also writes:
Maybe it is substance that he cannot stand.
I did not see your post because I still hide Mike's posts and your post was a reply to one of his. But you just have to unlogon to see everything. I had not bothered as I did not think Mike was posting here again.
Once you hide some one on this forum, he or she stays hidden.
Since Yanniru does not read my posts, the phrase "same back atcha, pard" comes to mind.
But he's not really considering anything the matter sincerely. It is quite evident.