"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

altheim wrote:

"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

altheim wrote:

"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

researcher wrote:

Michael Davis wrote:

altheim wrote:

[snis]

Then why did you post your comment "Can't speak for yourself..."
directly beneath your own "This isn't a debating forum..." - which
in turn you posted under my name? This is just sloppy editing.

More like sloppy reading.
Very little seems to be comprehensible to you.

You really do suck at this.

Agreement noted.

Why don't you give up Michael, these tit-for-tat comebacks
are pathetic.

List what you think he has proposed that can be scientifically
investigated.

His Psychotronic Energy.

Ok, so please explain how it can be investigated.

Why me? It's not my theory.

See, there's more to
science than just making up a snappy but meaningless phrase like
"psychotronic energy."

I agree - absolutely. In fact I said as much to researcher himself.
It is one thing to observe an anomalous effect, but the moment
you give it a name - like psi or psychotronic - you imply you
know its mechanism. The trouble is, when you are at the
theorizing stage you *need* a name or label in order to convey
what you are theorizing about. Therefore, thoeorizers need a
little bit of lattitude in order to communicate.

...I'll help you out with the first step. What leads
you to believe there even is some unknown form of energy at work here?
Please explain it in detail and show all your work. You need to answer
that question first, then about a dozen more, before you can even start
to formulate a decent testable hypothesis.

If you are asking me you are just pissing in the wind. If it were my
theory I would find a different way of presenting it to the group.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is
proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in

everlasting

ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Non sequitur. You have not actually investigated anything.

But it *is* relevant:

To whom?

The same people for whom you think it is non sequitor.

You mean kooks? Well lots of nonsensical things are somehow relevant to
them, but so what? How is it relevant here in the real world?

You are getting lost again - or deliberately trying to obfuscate:
You said, to reiterate, that the above statement which, in short,
says that "contempt prior to investigation... keeps man in
everlasting ignorance" is non-sequitor, i.e. irrelevant.

Well, the fact is, it is a universal truth and it *is* relevant
here because you (though not only you) are showing
contempt for an idea *before* investigation.

And all are totally irrelevant to this discussion. "researcher" just
can't think of anything intelligent and relevant to say, so he panicked
and cut&pasted a bunch of irrelevant quotes from famous people in hopes
that his cowardly shotgun approach might hit something and impress
someone. Looks like he only managed to impress you. Everyone else seems
to see what a fool he is.

Oh! come on. Don't be so damn patronizing. Not everyone enjoys
confrontation like you do and not everyone has made Usenet
debate a compulsive hobby like you. It doesn't mean his ideas
are bad. If you really want to influence his thinking try a bit of
sensitivity.

In one sentence you manage to offend two basic
tenets of the very doctrine you most want to uphold - scepticism.

The skeptics here don't seem to be offended by *my* posts. HTH.

Bwaaaaahahahaha! ... How do you know? Shall we ask them?

Political correctness will be the death of Western Civilization. It is a
disease that costs more and does more damage than AIDS, cancer, heart
disease and male pattern baldness combined. The world just makes so much
more sense when you *don't* give every ranting nut the benefit of the
doubt. Try it, you'll like it.

Hey! You'll get no argument from me about political correctness.
I'm far from PC but I don't go in for deliberate Schadenfreude
either.

--
altheim