Clearance Items

  • sifferkoll

    It's the way you are starting to rage against other forum members with other oppinions. Example:

    It sounds like in the kindergarten if one child took the toy of another one.


    Ok. I still do not get it. Is it about how I question him (using a language that I believe is widely understood ... ) Or is it that I question him at all? And please don't try to make the impression that this forum is anything but (an advanced kind of) kindergarten. Everything is...

  • You do not understand me correctly. Dewey contributes many other things than ad hominem attacks. You only contribute ad hominem attacks here, except for that one post where you included a news clipping about Rossi, which was a substantive post. But to underscore the point: if you guys continue this, posts from both of you related to this melee are going to the bargain bin.

  • You do not understand me correctly. Dewey contributes many other things than ad hominem attacks. You only contribute ad hominem attacks here, except for that one post where you included a news clipping about Rossi, which was a substantive post. But to underscore the point: if you guys continue this, posts from both of you related to this melee are going to the bargain bin.


    Oh yes, I believe I do Eric. According to the avatar to the left I made 496 posts (not as many as you - I give you that, but I have a other stuff to do as well you know), and many of them long before you even bothered to care about this forum ...

  • Apart from that post with the news clipping, no post comes to mind where you do not call into question someone's motives or imply or attempt to build a case that they're some kind of shill or something. That kind of post offers nothing to discussions here and simply serves to foul up the air.

  • Apart from that post with the news clipping, no post comes to mind where you do not call into question someone's motives or imply or attempt to build a case that they're some kind of shill or something. That kind of post offers nothing to discussions here and simply serves to foul up the air.


    Clean air is important, isn't it?


    The obvious question here is of course. Why is it so important to you that the motives of the participants in the discussions here, are not discussed???? (it might come as a surprise to you but I sincerely believe those motives and your answer is maybe more important than most other pseudo questions discussed)




    And.


    I also clearly noticed that you moved all my comments out of context, but of course did not move Dewey's original accusation of the Swedes... Why is that?

  • Motives are inscrutable. One can get the sense that someone's motives are off, as occasionally seems to be the case. But some people are especially bad at reading people's motives. For example, I have seen few people who are less able to read people's motives and intentions than you. So such discussions are inevitably fruitless. In addition, a person's motives can be off, and the person might still be correct about something, which is what is most important in a logical argument. So even if one somehow succeeds in disclosing bad motives, that does not negate the point a person has made. That is why in debate they have a rule against ad hominem arguments. In debate, this kind of argument is not permitted. Ad hominem arguments are explicitly identified as a logical fallacy. They have little place in a discussion seeking to ascertain the facts. I highly encourage you to read that page I linked to and try to see where it's coming from.


    I moved the pointless exchange between Dewey and you here. If you have anything factual to add to the comment from Dewey, reply to his comment with provable facts, devoid of personal attacks and accusations; or, failing that, at least speculations that are devoid of personal attacks and accusations. If you post a polite reply to Dewey that does not focus on him but instead focuses on the substance of what he said, you will see that it is not moved into this thread.

  • Keep saying it Jed, maybe it will become true some day....

    It is true today.

    Jed has been playing this game for a long time. When I first started talking about my paper on spf, he tried the same hogwash. So, yes, I am repeating myself.


    Or is it you don't understand copyrights and such. My company, as part of the DOE-complex, has a separate, special copyright arrangement with journals. I have to send them a copy of it every time I publish something.

    Then your competence is called into question, because even junior researchers are able to upload manuscripts onto Arxiv. You're just hiding behind your usual giant pile of bullshit.


    Moved from the replication thread. Eric

  • Motives are inscrutable. One can get the sense that someone's motives are off, as occasionally seems to be the case. But some people are especially bad at reading people's motives. For example, I have seen few people who are less able to read people's motives and intentions than you. So such discussions are inevitably fruitless. In addition, a person's motives can be off, and the person might still be factually correct, which is what is most important. So even if one somehow succeeds in disclosing bad motives, that does not negate the point they have made. That is why in debate they have a rule against ad hominem arguments. In debate, this kind of argument is not permitted. Ad hominem arguments are explicitly identified as a logical fallacy. They have little place in a discussion seeking to ascertain the facts. I highly encourage you to read that page and try to see where it's coming from.


    I moved the pointless exchange between Dewey and you here. If you have anything factual to add to the comment from Dewey, reply to his comment with provable facts, devoid of personal attacks and accusations; or, failing that, at least speculations that are devoid of personal attacks and accusations. If you post a reply to Dewey that does not focus on him but instead focuses on the topic at hand, will see that it is not moved into this thread.


    Well Eric, as you might suspect - I disagree. My experience is that I'm usually pretty spot on when it comes to evaluate other peoples motives. My track record is among the best here no doubt about it - go back and check the history. And please don't try to teach me about ad hominem/logical fallacy/etc since these are subjects you obviously know nothing about. And btw, if ad hominem is not permitted, why is it that everything is allowed when it comes to Rossi? Or the people (italians and swedes usually) supporting him? Tell me? Why the different standards?


    And, for a guy like you, making a point of having absolutely no opinion at all of your own (see below, science is consensus to you right?) - it is kind of strange that you are having such a strong opinion about other people having opinions and motives about anything ... Or do you simply believe that those do not exist? Or are you only aiming for control here? Is that the reason for keeping different standards here, where everything is allowed when accusing Rossi et al, but nothing on Dewey, Jed, Mary, TC, THH, etc


    https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/6713/eric-walker

    Quote

    Enthusiast with questions about physics from time to time. Since I’m not in much of a position to assess the validity of answers, I generally just pick the answer with the most votes after a certain amount of time has passed.



  • The clearest reason I know that you're not very good at discerning people's motives is because you don't seem to have a handle on my own. You have repeatedly gone far wide of the mark, and no doubt continue to do so today. It makes it pretty clear (to me at least) that your powers of discernment leave something to be desired.


    But if you understood the point I was making about ad hominem arguments, my motives, and those of anyone else on this forum, would become mostly moot. Instead they are your sole focus, as far as I can tell, grievously limiting the contribution you are able to make here and making it on balance a net negative.


    And btw, if ad hominem is not permitted, why is it that everything is allowed when it comes to Rossi? Or the people (italians and swedes usually) supporting him? Tell me that? Why different rules?


    I don't like the attacks against Rossi's person any more than Alain Smith does. I wish people did not attack him or use the kind of language that is often used. I have said that several times. But there is an important difference between that kind of objectionable behavior and the objectionable behavior of turning the conversation away from what a member of this forum is saying and towards their person. Such behavior distracts from whatever point was being made and brings in tangential issues that are likely not of interest. It takes effort to bring the discussion back to the original point that was at issue.


    Your stalking me is super creepy and does not advance your argument in the slightest.

  • Eric - Siffer is in one of his hyperactive-overdrive episodes which we've seen happen from time to time. He's hit both Dewey and Darden with Linkedin request in the last couple of hours.

    He'll eventually settle back down - I feel sorry for the guy.


    Sorry about that Dewey, but nice to know that you noticed. Google is a bitch and when clicking I usually like to make myself known... BTW, did you also notice JTV is a common friend of ours since long ... :)


    And, yes, I confess, I do have my "hyperactive" episodes, usually when I have nothing better do do. Like now. And please feel safe, I will probably settle back again due to lack of time. No need to feel sorry though ... having friends like you makes me happy. :D



    (it is kind of cute, the way you are trying to take care of Eric.... )