|
Re: comment on EQF post |
EQF, your post is a typical example of the "crank" reaction to criticism. Further, you are expressing classic examples of several well understood logical fallacies. I highly recommend you look up the wikipedia articles on "crank" and "list of logical fallacies" and study and understand them. Then, and only then, will you understand why you get the reactions you do from folks. As for the responses to what you post here, if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen. I'm not saying you should leave here. Not at all. But if you are going to post here, then you should be prepared for the responses. If you don't want responses then set up your own forum, post there, and don't allow anyone to respond. Something else you need to learn is that criticism is critical to the scientific process. Only when a theory stands up to criticism is it accepted as likely true. Oh, another concept you might want to look up is The Allegory of the Cave, by Plato. You need to decide exactly where you are in the cave. Once you decide, come back to me and then I'll tell you why you're wrong. (unless by some chance you do choose correctly) Brian Follow Ups: ● Re: comment on EQF post // - Tony 08:40:41 - 1/27/2010 (76520) (2) ● Re: comment on EQF post // - Canie 11:02:48 - 1/27/2010 (76532) (0) ● Re: comment on EQF post // - Roger Hunter 08:57:44 - 1/27/2010 (76521) (2) ● Re: comment on EQF post // - mrrabbit 09:35:33 - 1/27/2010 (76523) (0) ● impossible? - John Vidale 09:23:38 - 1/27/2010 (76522) (3) ● Re: impossible? - Roger Hunter 11:37:38 - 1/27/2010 (76536) (0) ● Re: impossible? - Tony 10:06:50 - 1/27/2010 (76526) (1) ● Re: impossible? - Skywise 20:32:07 - 1/27/2010 (76545) (0) ● Re: impossible? - heartland chris 09:43:40 - 1/27/2010 (76525) (1) ● Re: impossible? // I remember those days - Tony 10:08:03 - 1/27/2010 (76527) (0) |
|