LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksSorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
July 23rd, 2014, 09:54 PM
Sorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:43 AM.
Science never claims to be infallible. That's what Religion does.
Sorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:43 AM.
You should re-read what he posted. The many techniques that science uses to explain the natural universe are encouraged to re-test any given hypothesis by other scientists. As education and the means to examine the natural universe develop, there will always be re-examination. To date the protocols used in science are the best model which produces testable, falsifiable, and predictive value of natural phenomena.
If you have a better technique, please produce it.
While in recent years the radical right in the US has disenfranchised many scientist (and become anti-science), there's no inherent associations between being liberal and being a scientist or accepting their work; just check out the emotional-based liberal anti-facts when it comes to risk of nuclear power or healthiness of non-organic foods.
The possibility of science needing revision is inherent in the process of doing science--only those who don't understand it would say otherwise.
Sorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:43 AM.
I applaud you in being able to paste images on on Web site, from your computer, where the underlying technologies are a product of science.
Sorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:43 AM.
I say this sincerely, I have no idea of the point you are trying to make.
Sorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:42 AM.
Science is about "balance of probabilities". It tells you what is most probably true. It never attempts to tell you what is certainly true.
What many Theologians have done is commit the "straw man" logical error, by attempting to argue that science has claimed something science never claimed, and then submit arguments showing that the thing science never said is in fact false. Thereby making scientists seem very foolish for having supposedly said this thing which they never said.
All science suggests is that, if one person owns a Casino, and another person goes to that Casino to gamble for an evening, then by the end of the evening it is more likely true that the owner of the Casino will have become more wealthy, rather than that the gambler will have become more wealthy.
The reason scientists sometimes scoff at religious people is because religious people frequently play the role of the gambler at the Casino, betting against the odds. Insisting that their dogmatic view is right (will win a test of truth) because there exists a non-zero chance it might be right. Just as a gambler bets money at a game on the basis of a personal conviction that they will win the game, even though they know the odds are against it.
Scientists always play the role of the Casino owner. Betting with the odds instead of against them. And because they do this they are much more often right than they are wrong. However, just as the Casino owner does sometimes lose their bet, so also the scientist does sometimes lose their bet. But neither scientists, nor casino owners lose nearly so often as do the gamblers who enter the casino.
Restating the same thing the same way doesn't help explain your point AT ALL.Originally Posted by EmmaRoydes
I think you missed my point. Science has disproven science on a number of occasions. butter being one of them, plogiston being another. There are countless instances where science has to abruptly reverse gears on conclusions that they've made when evidence rears its ugly head. It's not that science is complete horsehit, it's that science is not infallible and has had its fair share of rabbit holes.
Examples? Are they before modern peer-review science? Or from pre-science? Are they really "reverse gears" or included into broader more general hypothesis (almost always the case when someone makes such claims).
Where do you get the idea that people think science is infallible? Certainly not scientist.
It's just another pain in the ass poster (as indicated by the oh so amusing user name)
And, very possibly, a sock 1.
Viz.
Uh, yeah. Where? To whom?I've been saying all along
1 Not to mention inordinately bone-headed.
It's supposed to work like that. And it's going to keep doing that. You understand what direction that takes us?
What does this have to do with liberals? Science is not liberal or conservative.
If you want infallible truth then you want religion.
If you want to increase your knowlege of how the world works you want science.
It is wrong to think the religious types are not interested in truth or knowlege because they usually are. The problem is that they want certainty instead of doubt with it. They have a need to believe.
Science is a skeptical practice which only aims at getting what we do know a bit less wrong, but in the end we will still have a lot of what we know turn out to be wrong. That is OK because if you decide to go with religion not only do you start out knowing stuff that is wrong you also deny yourself any chance to correct your mistakes and get it less wrong.
I suppose that need for certainty instead of uncertainty is why fundamentalists and conservatives find themselves so drawn to religion.
I don't understand how the OP can associate political beliefs with science. Science is worldwide...politics are local. What makes a "liberal" in one country may be different than other countries.
"Crank-like typing detected" PawSense helps you catproof your computer.
Sorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:42 AM.
What I am not getting from you is the suggestion that you understand the scientific process. At all.
I'm also not getting the feeling that you care to change that.
So speaks someone entirely ignorant of science and how it works, still after the OP our hopes weren't highThe point is that modern science is doing too much trusting and not enough verifying
If you are interested in why there are so many science skeptics nowadays
It's because most people are scientifically illiterate and prefer woo.
You will see why modern science is shooting itself in the foot
I don't think it is, science pays no attention to the opinions of the ignorant and it's feet are well grounded and free of bullet holes.
It's really unfortunate that science is now receiving such a black eye and the effect. on real scientists, who are really above all of the nonsense that is going on, yet get questioned on their conclusions.
See my last comment.
If you were educated and weren't so ignorant you would know that that is how science works. It responds to new evidence. It is constantly disproving itself, refining itself, discarding some theories, modifying some theories, adding new theories. It's called the Scientific Method -- and it works.
What this has to do with liberals is beyond me.
(This poster is definitely a sock puppet, probably of a previously banned/suspended poster.)
The OP mentioned butter....I wonder what they were talking about.
er... so conservatives hate science? how? most religions accept science. Many of the world's great scientists even pre-current scientific method were theists (like in the Arab world, India, Persia, etc.)
I find the only theists who hate science are radicals, and even then many of them may justify science via their holy books.
Sorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:42 AM.
Sooo...what about the butter?
That is very astute of you, Sherlock.I think you missed my point.
I think the OP uses it to treat his emmaroydes.
(singing) Trollin'... trollin'.....trollin'.....
Though they're disapprovin'
Keep those doggies movin'......Rawhide!
I was just curious....he mentioned butter and some obscure theoretical element from 1667 that tried to explain fire as examples of science getting it wrong. I'm just wondering what we got wrong about butter.
...and I think he's a 15 year old troll.
Well Mac, that would be an excuse of sorts. But I think it's worse than that -- it's an adult. An adult troll with a metaphorical inflamed orifice.
Sorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:41 AM.
Ingredients
2 eggs (medium)
200g caster sugar
250ml milk (semi-skimmed or whole)
125ml vegetable oil
400g plain flour
3tsp baking powder
1 tsp salt
OR
400g self raising flour
You will also need:
A muffin tray
Muffin paper cases
NB: If you want to do chocolate flavoured muffins substitute 100g of flour for cocoa (DO NOT USE DRINKING CHOCOLATE)
Method
Preheat oven to Gas Mark 6 or a medium temperature. Line muffin tray with paper muffin cases.
Beat the eggs in a mixing bowl and then mix in the oil and milk. Add the sugar and whisk until dissolved.
Sift in the dry ingredients: flour, baking powder and salt and mix until smooth. NB: add any extra ingredients now e.g. chocolate chips/fruit
Fill muffin cases TWO THIRDS full (this is important for the perfect size muffins) and bake in the middle of the oven for 25 minutes (approx. depending on your oven)
Leave to cool (or enjoy warm!)
And yet you post examples of science not trusting and verifying.
ALL scientists get questioned on their conclusions. It's how science works.If you are interested in why there are so many science skeptics nowadays, check out retractionwatch.com. You will see why modern science is shooting itself in the foot. It's really unfortunate that science is now receiving such a black eye and the effect. on real scientists, who are really above all of the nonsense that is going on, yet get questioned on their conclusions.
That's the logic flaw in this troll's argument. He has created a straw man: That we on this forum have stated that science is infallible. (Of course, no one on this forum has ever said that.) Then the troll rants away about how science can be wrong. It's a senseless argument.
I think this troll really has an axe to grind about global warming. If the troll had a bit of integrity it would just come out and state its position on global warming, with some data to support the argument.
If you think about it....science is wrong most of the time. That's how it works. You come up with idea and test it, if you were wrong... you change your idea and test again...then repeat 1000x until you get it right.
Sorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:41 AM.
As someone who has spent 15 years as an academic atmospheric chemist, your last post pegs you as just another stupid dumbass
Might as well move this thread to the trash now, and save time later.
I never claimed -- not once -- that I supported (or didn't support) the current mainstream climate change theories. I'm not educated enough in meteorology, chemistry, oceanography, or any of the other sciences involved to dispute them though. So, I'll go ahead now (for the first time) and state that I accept the current mainstream global warming theories. Just like I accept SR, GR, Quantum Theory, the Big Bang Theory, etc., etc..
But go ahead, open a new thread and post your ideas. There are plenty of others here that know much more than I do and they will respond. If your ideas are strong and supported, then you will prevail.
A bit of advice: lose the chip on your shoulder -- it won't help you in the ensuing discussion.
Sorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:41 AM.
"Liberal", huh?
It's a well known fact that reality has a liberal bias.
Why don't you head back to Conservapedia to play with all your little friends and leave the adults in peace?
Close . . . Actually politifake.org. EmmaRoydes's Profile
The troll already posted an image from that website. Its posts over there are one rant after another -- all against "liberals".
If you look through the troll's posting history on that website, you will see that all it is doing is copy+pasting comments from that website into this forum.
From that website:
"But because science has been wrong before, doesn't mean that it's wrong every time or that I'm an idiot as you are implying because I'm skeptical."
which matches the post in this thread:
"Just because science has been wrong before, doesn't mean that it's wrong every time or that I'm an idiot as you are implying because I'm skeptical."
From that website:
"I can list a number of times that science has been wrong (phlogiston and b'utter have already been brought up -- are you saying those things didn't happen?"
which matches the post in this thread:
"I can list a number of times that science has been wrong (phlogiston and butter are examples-- are you saying those things didn't happen?)"
From that website:
"Science has disproven science on a number of occasions. b***er being one of them, plogiston being another. There are countless instances where science has to abruptly reverse gears on conclusions that they've made when evidence rears its ugly head."
which matches the post in this thread:
"Science has disproven science on a number of occasions. butter being one of them, plogiston being another. There are countless instances where science has to abruptly reverse gears on conclusions that they've made when evidence rears its ugly head."
From that website:
"I think you missed my point. It's not that science is complete horsehit, it's that science is not infallible and has had its fair share of rabbit holes."
which matches the post in this thread:
"I think liberals missed my point. It's not that science is complete horsehit, it's that science is not infallible and has had its fair share of rabbit holes."
And so on...
So, anyone doubting that it is a troll - or thinking that the troll is putting any thought into it's replies - should probably abandon those ideas.
Reply to post #40 yep you're an idiot. My degrees and credentials are on my home page, they are easily verified. I'm wasting no more time on you.
Funny, I just got done looking at about 20-30 of its posts over there. I was curious if it is really a troll. It's a troll.
It's a f***Ing idiot, troll is a secondary characteristic. Another window licker for the ignore list...
It is sort of apropos that it calls itself "Hemorrhoids". If an entire human body represents mankind then EmmaRoydes (and his ilk) are definitely that (unwanted) part of the body.
Sorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:40 AM.
Sorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:40 AM.
You know, sometimes I get a bit irritated with this forum -- not often -- but sometimes. What makes me truly appreciate this place is visiting a site like politifake.org. Sturgeon's Law is correct: 90% of everything is crap. And that website is in the 90%.
You are a moron, nothing I say will change this sad state of affairs so I'll leave you to your idiocy...Edit this was a response to the troll not Chuck...
Sorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:40 AM.
Nope, just experienced enough to know arguing with stupid trolls is a waste of my time...*ignore list edited*
Sorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:40 AM.
If you don't agree with me, you have a closed mind. herpa derpa!
One more thing . . .
There is no need for the world of science to apologize for Phlogiston Theory. It was the best theory of that time (in the 1660s) to explain combustion. Sure, it was wrong. And it was discarded and replaced. Just like Aristotle's theories of motion were discarded by Galileo/Newton et al. Just like Ptolemy's Almagest. That's how science (and the Scientific Method) work.
Phlogiston theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From wiki:
Phlogiston theory permitted chemists to bring clarification of apparently different phenomena into a coherent structure: combustion, metabolism, and configuration of rust. The recognition of the relation between combustion and metabolism was a forerunner of the recognition that the metabolism of living organisms and combustion can be understood in terms of fundamentally related chemical processes.
Pointing out something is not being upset, it's merely highlighting your inability to present a valid argument instead of name calling or distracting with nonsense like you just did.
Sorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:39 AM.
This whole thread is basically the biggest strawman argument I've ever seen.
And what I want to know from the OP is, say your statement is taken at face value, what then? What's really your point? Science is fallible, so, um, guessing is always right? Science is fallible so astrology isn't? Science is fallible so any "theory" made up by any person is of equal status?
You too. You can start by explaining how someone who doesn't buy the manmade global warming thing is somehow of the "creationist mindset".
Sorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:39 AM.
I do, however, think you have some real issues with understanding that not everyone thinks the way you do and that doesn't necessarily make them wrong.
Sorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:39 AM.
When you are done with your immature rants and wish to have a real discussion, you let me know and I'll be happy to accommodation you. Childish behavior doesn't accomplish anything but make you look bad.
Hey Hemorrhoids, no one is stopping you if you want to debate global warming. You seem to be "chomping at the bit" to get into a debate. Then do so. Start a thread, give some data to support your argument, and see where it goes. If you act like a human being, members here will treat you the same.
If you don't want to start a thread here then go to this science website and start a thread there:
Cosmoquest Forum
That site has a special section called ATM (against the mainstream).
Sorry. Please delete this thread. Thank you.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:39 AM.
It's sad that a progressive mindset where we constantly refine out lifestyle to meet new understandings of the world around us can be turned into a political argument. Science is all about progress and learning. Those are, at least in the US, "liberal" ideologies. Conservatives have been touting the benefits of going back to a past era when things, at least in the hindsight of nostalgia and generational amnesia, seem like better times.
Your politicizing of the climate change debate (as you seem to think you are instigating) does not demonstrate the fallacies of liberal scientists, but rather your own inability to cope with a world rapidly changing in the face of serious threats to our planet's health. If you best address your own rigidity by decrying the work of scientists, go for it. Just don't expect a friendly welcome from us.
I hope you get your meds adjusted soon so the hallucinations get a little less intense for you.
Dont forget your meds, skippy.
Now you can go back to your group therapy and take your meds.
Now you really CAN go back to your group therapy and this time, take a deep breath, and for the sake of humankind, please don't forget to take those meds.
I know your embarrassment hurts in this but the medication will make the pain go away...I PROMISE!
Hemorrhoids, you are see-thru. You come here on the attack, using flawed logic, and everyone knows why. I've seen it dozens of times -- maybe hundreds -- here and other science forums. Your MO: You (and trolls just like you) come to a forum and immediately attack everyone, then you get attacked back, which you then use as an excuse to not start the debate. You play the victim. Predictable.
Start a thread. Be nice (if that is possible with you). See where it goes.
~ A well reasoned inquiry was made of you regarding this.. Please explain the butter remark ?
and it seems clear to me that you do NOT understand the ethos of science.. To test, to challenge to inquire and doubt.
To form from conclusions of scientific revue theory and test them. To be able to make prediction and conclusions of scientific value.
You seem to think you have scored a hit with 'Science was wrong.." and it just makes you look like a childish fool. SCIENCE can never be shown as wrong.. Science is a method. Not a fact. Science is reasoned to have often made the conclusion; " That's odd, what caused that to happen." and promptly re writes itself..
As for your argument of the milk fats issue.. The human digestive system is well equipped to safely cope with some fat content in our diet.. and does.. Any excess is unhealthy.. Even water can be fatal. Understanding moderation.. can you concede.. show and tell.
Why hasn't this bloody pain in the ass been banned yet?
I have to agree .A permanent ban surely.
It is getting a bit boring reading about what you are doing with your ignore list!
Are you guys running some sort of democratic lynch mob?I have to agree .A permanent ban surely.
Maybe I should have left it to the mods as I didn't report the post but that guy's contribution was really embarrassing and was also very aggressive and unpleasant.Are you guys running some sort of democratic lynch mob?I have to agree .A permanent ban surely.
It also seems he was cutting and pasting from his own site and passing it off as part of the conversation.
He was up against quite a bit of aggression, no wonder he started getting rattled. Well cutting and pasting shouldn't be a crime even if it was from his own website. I have had times where everyone seems to swoop in like a pack of savage dogs and it is very hard to remain organised on your end.Maybe I should have left it to the mods as I didn't report the post but that guy's contribution was really embarrassing and was also very aggressive and unpleasant.Are you guys running some sort of democratic lynch mob?I have to agree .A permanent ban surely.
It also seems he was cutting and pasting from his own site and passing it off as part of the conversation.
He seemed to be against science on two points, this phlogiston and butter (which I found out later butter was simply dairy butter). The phlogiston was an idea that was obviously wrong in our eyes but what is wrong with butter?
Politics section! Look do you think you wouldn't forget the past and continually bring up the past no matter how nice and nice he was?
You're obviously not reading the same thread as the rest of us.
He (she?) started with an attack.
Yep.He seemed to be against science on two points
You're reading a different one.
Those two points were particular selections, not the sole (or entire) argument.
(An argument, by the way, that is predicated on a false view).
I thought you were going to be more scientific? (Yeah, right.
Phlogiston Theory was the dominant theory of combustion for over 100 years (from 1660s to 1780s). It wasn't "obviously" wrong to the eyes or minds of scientists of that era. Yes, it was eventually discarded using newer evidence. That is how science works.
And the scientific point being??? As I said it is wrong in our eyes (today as you imply).I thought you were going to be more scientific? (Yeah, right.
Phlogiston Theory was the dominant theory of combustion for over 100 years (from 1660s to 1780s). It wasn't "obviously" wrong to the eyes or minds of scientists of that era. Yes, it was eventually discarded using newer evidence. That is how science works.
This forum section is on politics so the politics rather than science need to be emphasized here. I hadn't entered the Politics subforum much before as I don't involve myself in politics that often.
I haven't forgotten about my desire to get scientific, that is the main restraint to my posting: "If I can't say something truly scientific I ought not say it".
So I went back and read the OP, at least, and "science is not infallible"is the premise of the debate and the two particular selections to prove her point were the ones I mentioned.You're obviously not reading the same thread as the rest of us.
He (she?) started with an attack.
Yep.He seemed to be against science on two points
You're reading a different one.
Those two points were particular selections, not the sole (or entire) argument.
(An argument, by the way, that is predicated on a false view).
That's self-evident, since the topic (regardless of which sub-forum it's in) isn't politics.
The closest it got was the spurious (and false) generalisation of scientists as "liberal" 1.
Oh good. There's a chance you're learning something.So I went back and read the OP, at least, and "science is not infallible"is the premise of the debate and the two particular selections to prove her point were the ones I mentioned.
1 Nazi Germany didn't have scientists who believed in Nazism? Soviet Russia didn't have scientists who openly espoused Communism? There are no right-wing scientists in the USA (or even Britain) today?
http://www.bitboost.com/pawsense/pawsense-faq.html
A: If you carefully measure cat paws, you will find that practically all cat paws are significantly larger than a typical keyboard key. When a cat first places its paw down, the cat's weight plus the momentum of the cat's movement exerts pounds of force on the keyboard, primarily through the cat's paw pads. The cat's paw angles and toe positions also undergo complex changes while the paw lands on the keyboard. This forces keys and often key combinations down in a distinctive style of typing which includes unusual timing patterns. Cats' patterns of overall movement in walking or lying down also help make their typing more recognizable.
So PawSense detects cat typing by weighing a combination of factors to achieve maximal speed and reliability.
Science should first and foremost be committed to truth and knowledge. It is sometimes necessary to consider public opinion in order to get grants and enable scientific discoveries to be applied in a way that helps people, but politics should always be secondary to the goal of truth. Personally, I don't think scientific skeptics are evidence that science needs to change its MO. There have always been skeptics and anti-scientific claims, and they always prove weaker than truth. It is my, possibly naive, opinion that there is inherent power in what is true. What is true will, ultimately, win out. Eventually anyone of consequence accepted a heliocentric model. Eventually, just about everyone will accept the age of the universe. Etc. etc.The point is that modern science is doing too much trusting and not enough verifying. If you are interested in why there are so many science skeptics nowadays, check out retractionwatch.com. You will see why modern science is shooting itself in the foot. It's really unfortunate that science is now receiving such a black eye and the effect. on real scientists, who are really above all of the nonsense that is going on, yet get questioned on their conclusions.
But the same is true in reverse. Things the scientific method believed in the past that turned out to be false were ultimately outed as fiction because of the scientific method. Not because of anti-scientific skeptics. Phlogiston being discarded happened because it could not stand up to the power of truth. It's a scientific success story, not a failure story. (Just like Three Mile Island is often touted as a warning against nuclear energy but is truly a testament to nuclear fail safes.) Revised or discarded theories display the strength in the scientific method more than the weaknesses.
Truth can take a long time to win out, people can take two steps forward and one step back, but in the end lies loose. But maybe I'm just naive.
You're quite liberal in your consumption of beer.That's self-evident, since the topic (regardless of which sub-forum it's in) isn't politics.
The closest it got was the spurious (and false) generalisation of scientists as "liberal" 1.
Oh good. There's a chance you're learning something.So I went back and read the OP, at least, and "science is not infallible"is the premise of the debate and the two particular selections to prove her point were the ones I mentioned.
1 Nazi Germany didn't have scientists who believed in Nazism? Soviet Russia didn't have scientists who openly espoused Communism? There are no right-wing scientists in the USA (or even Britain) today?Me too! I guess that makes us liberal scientists.
Please delete this thread. Thank you.
http://www.thescienceforum.com/polit...tml#post585282
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:38 AM.
Don't feed the troll...
I was wrong. Sorry.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 01:55 AM.
Working on your next ban already! Good luck.
[URL
Never mind. You are right.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 01:43 AM. Reason: sorry
I just came here to say sorry! Seriously. I shouldn't have come here and acted the way I did.
With that out of the way, I probably should give you a heads up.
I am saying this because a troll at the website I normally frequent has threatened to come here and ask for help exposing me as a sock puppet there. He will accuse me of being someone named Arnnatz and StoneTools. Just ignore him. He's a little nuts. It is true that one of them are friends of mine but it appears both were unfairly banned from my website long before I joined. I have nothing to do with them.
So it's best to just ignore him otherwise he will drag you into his own crazy mentally ill world.
FYI the moderator there already investigated the accusation and found that my IP was different than the two supposed accounts I was using there. So case closed. But he will probably come here anyways and try to point out meaningless speculation and circumstantial evidence. he's a little nuts. like I said, ignore the troll.
If I'm to understand right, if someone came here and asked for help trying to get me in trouble there, then that would be the same as trolling? I ask because I was unfairly banned twice for much less outrageous behavior. So I can expect that somebody coming here to exact a personal vendetta against me would be treated the same, amirite?
He will try to make this about getting "science's" back and he will accuse me of being an anti-science troll who harasses science people there. Yes, it's as ridiculous as it sounds. Make no mistake, he just holding a personal grudge.
I shouldn't have come here and I hope saying sorry and meaning it will be enough to stop a stupid flame war. I'm being preemptive.
Incidentally, I know telling you all this opens me up to personal attacks but I'm not stupid. I can always deny that I even came here and say that this account was made by my enemy to make me look bad. The moderator at my forum has my back and there has never been proof of me ever sockpuppetting there (and if anyone from here comes there to attack me he will ban them; in fact, he banned a troll today who was attacking me! probably someone from here)
If the other troll who has a vendetta against me shows up, you can see for yourself: there is plenty of evidence that this troll is holding a personal grudge. So if he does show up here, it's just more proof.
Sorry for bothering anyone here. Have a wonderful day
P.S. Could anyone delete this thread for me? Like I said, I'm sorry for coming here to bother anyone. Would just like to forget this happened.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 01:51 AM.
No, it wouldn't. A Comp Sci degree no more qualifies you to talk on climatology than a degree in astrophysics qualifies you to talk about evolution. This isn't to say you need a degree to have opinions, but it isn't the qualifications that make you right. It's the knowledge and experience that typically come with those degrees that make someone right.
And 'man killed the dinosaurs' and all other such claims. Who said this? Who presented evidence indicating these claims are true? Give me names and dates, please, and then an explanation why it is relevant at all.
Does anybody here think that scientists are infallible?
~ I re post this because you have not answered me or it.. Please do. Not answering my question makes you seem 'trollish'.~ A well reasoned inquiry was made of you regarding this.. Please explain the butter remark ?
and it seems clear to me that you do NOT understand the ethos of science.. To test, to challenge to inquire and doubt.
To form from conclusions of scientific revue theory and test them. To be able to make prediction and conclusions of scientific value.
You seem to think you have scored a hit with 'Science was wrong.." and it just makes you look like a childish fool. SCIENCE can never be shown as wrong.. Science is a method. Not a fact. Science is reasoned to have often made the conclusion; " That's odd, what caused that to happen." and promptly re writes itself..
As for your argument of the milk fats issue.. The human digestive system is well equipped to safely cope with some fat content in our diet.. and does.. Any excess is unhealthy.. Even water can be fatal. Understanding moderation.. can you concede.. show and tell.
Show me as wrong..
Can someone help me delete this thread please? Thank you and have a wonderful day.
What a disingenuous load of tosh.I just came here to say sorry! Seriously. I shouldn't have come here and acted the way I did.
With that out of the way, I probably should give you a heads up.
I am saying this because a troll at the website I normally frequent has threatened to come here and ask for help exposing me as a sock puppet there. He will accuse me of being someone named Arnnatz and StoneTools. Just ignore him. He's a little nuts. It is true that one of them are friends of mine but it appears both were unfairly banned from my website long before I joined. I have nothing to do with them.
So it's best to just ignore him otherwise he will drag you into his own crazy mentally ill world.
FYI the moderator there already investigated the accusation and found that my IP was different than the two supposed accounts I was using there. So case closed. But he will probably come here anyways and try to point out meaningless speculation and circumstantial evidence. he's a little nuts. like I said, ignore the troll.
If I'm to understand right, if someone came here and asked for help trying to get me in trouble there, then that would be the same as trolling? I ask because I was unfairly banned twice for much less outrageous behavior. So I can expect that somebody coming here to exact a personal vendetta against me would be treated the same, amirite?
He will try to make this about getting "science's" back and he will accuse me of being an anti-science troll who harasses science people there. Yes, it's as ridiculous as it sounds. Make no mistake, he just holding a personal grudge.
I shouldn't have come here and I hope saying sorry and meaning it will be enough to stop a stupid flame war. I'm being preemptive.
Incidentally, I know telling you all this opens me up to personal attacks but I'm not stupid. I can always deny that I even came here and say that this account was made by my enemy to make me look bad. The moderator at my forum has my back and there has never been proof of me ever sockpuppetting there (and if anyone from here comes there to attack me he will ban them; in fact, he banned a troll today who was attacking me! probably someone from here)
If the other troll who has a vendetta against me shows up, you can see for yourself: there is plenty of evidence that this troll is holding a personal grudge. So if he does show up here, it's just more proof.
Sorry for bothering anyone here. Have a wonderful day
P.S. Could anyone delete this thread for me? Like I said, I'm sorry for coming here to bother anyone. Would just like to forget this happened.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I can assure you involving myself in the drama of other forum rivalries does not sound like something I'd do, so don't worry about me.
Last edited by SowZ37; August 22nd, 2014 at 02:48 AM.
What is disingenuous about it?What a disingenuous load of tosh.I just came here to say sorry! Seriously. I shouldn't have come here and acted the way I did.
With that out of the way, I probably should give you a heads up.
I am saying this because a troll at the website I normally frequent has threatened to come here and ask for help exposing me as a sock puppet there. He will accuse me of being someone named Arnnatz and StoneTools. Just ignore him. He's a little nuts. It is true that one of them are friends of mine but it appears both were unfairly banned from my website long before I joined. I have nothing to do with them.
So it's best to just ignore him otherwise he will drag you into his own crazy mentally ill world.
FYI the moderator there already investigated the accusation and found that my IP was different than the two supposed accounts I was using there. So case closed. But he will probably come here anyways and try to point out meaningless speculation and circumstantial evidence. he's a little nuts. like I said, ignore the troll.
If I'm to understand right, if someone came here and asked for help trying to get me in trouble there, then that would be the same as trolling? I ask because I was unfairly banned twice for much less outrageous behavior. So I can expect that somebody coming here to exact a personal vendetta against me would be treated the same, amirite?
He will try to make this about getting "science's" back and he will accuse me of being an anti-science troll who harasses science people there. Yes, it's as ridiculous as it sounds. Make no mistake, he just holding a personal grudge.
I shouldn't have come here and I hope saying sorry and meaning it will be enough to stop a stupid flame war. I'm being preemptive.
Incidentally, I know telling you all this opens me up to personal attacks but I'm not stupid. I can always deny that I even came here and say that this account was made by my enemy to make me look bad. The moderator at my forum has my back and there has never been proof of me ever sockpuppetting there (and if anyone from here comes there to attack me he will ban them; in fact, he banned a troll today who was attacking me! probably someone from here)
If the other troll who has a vendetta against me shows up, you can see for yourself: there is plenty of evidence that this troll is holding a personal grudge. So if he does show up here, it's just more proof.
Sorry for bothering anyone here. Have a wonderful day
P.S. Could anyone delete this thread for me? Like I said, I'm sorry for coming here to bother anyone. Would just like to forget this happened.
I said I was sorry. Off your meds again?
Look.....I said I was sorry. I just don't want any problems there. I don't want any problems. I don't want that douche to come here and disrupt this forum calling me "Arnnatz" or "StoneTool" and frankly I don't want people to call me somebody that I'm not. It's just a big mess for everyone involved, including you people, and I'm trying to do you a favor.
I even offered to leave forever and offered to have my thread deleted, which is for the good of everyone involved, right?
So chill.
Last edited by EmmaRoydes; August 22nd, 2014 at 09:37 AM.
What a disingenuous load of tosh.
whateva... I just want my thread deleted.What a disingenuous load of tosh.
| « War on terror .... | Climate Change DEBUNKED as the liberal hoax it is » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
