It is impossible for you to have been doing the second since we had no past history. You were doing the first unless you are going to claim that your perspective is the only one that matters. But that is what you have been doing all along.
Miscommunication there...when I spoke of past experience, I meant "experience *in general* on FR", not "my past experience with you" as I do not specifically recall having corresponded with you before.
"I wanted you to look, but NOT for the reasons you attributed to me."
What you said was, "If you had done as I suggested, and searched some of his posts, you'd have seen what I meant."
Followed by, "It was not a posting of "what I consider graphic", still less did I post it in the hopes that you would go running off to see it."
So again we see that you are completely focused on yourself to the exclusion of all others. I'm beginning to detect a common theme for your posts.
That's because those lines were in response to a response you posted *about* me, and an inaccurate impugning of my motives. Of course my responses in such a situation are going to involve myself.
" In order for projection to occur, two conditions must apply. First, the accuser must harbor the emotions; second, (probably) the accused must be free from the emotions. I am not cantankerous, irascible, taking issue, etc."
Well of course you would make that claim, but the evidence suggests otherwise. You are the one who constantly brings up these attributes and projects them onto me, after all.
Repeating this charge does not substantiate it.
If you hadn't been rude about my wife's birthday, the subject of cantankerousness would not have *been* broached. Unless you think mentioning a wife's birthday makes someone irascible etc...?
"If I were, I would not have been asking you for more details about your quotes, I would have dismissed the quotes out of hand." And again we see this focus on yourself and what you would do such that the definition only fits you if you decide it does. Again with the extreme focus on yourself.
That quote was again, a response to an accusation from you -- and mentioning your quotes in the first place, and then asking for more details on them, again, is not a focus on my self.
Here again, a little more intellectual honesty from you would be nice. Geocentrism is not that the earth is the center of the solar system and you are either ignorant or disingenuous to imply it. It is that the earth is the center of the universe. This is the point of Ellis' quote and why Ellis' quote is appropriate. Whether it is 'expanding' or not is based on a whole set of assumptions around the interpretation of redshift. Is this the beginning of the 'dishonesty' you spoke of just above?
Not in the slightest, except on your part. The original food fight on this thread dealt with whether the Sun or the Earth was at the center of the Solar System...which is related to, but not identical, to the geocentrism of which you speak. And if you are considering whether the Earth is the center of the Universe then redshift does matter, which it does not for the original food fight.
The only bad faith I have seen is coming from you. But then we understand how you project onto others that which you first assume yourself.
I have engaged in no bad faith -- unless of course, you consider asking YOU for more details, when I could not verify your quotes, and expressly allowing for the possibility that the sources *I* found might have been wrong, while continuing to ask you, is bad faith.
And what's up with "we"? Nobody else on this thread has ever accused me of bad faith.
I suppose you would first have to assume that Ellis is talking about a subset of observations rather than the entire set. But that would make his point meaningless as anyone can construct a model to fit some limited set of observations that only they select. I think you are projecting again.
No projection here. The question is not (as you impute to me incorrectly) whether Ellis constructed a model to fit a limited set of observations that only he selected. The question is whether he was talking about the same topic ass the earlier posters on this thread. You quoted Ellis, and I couldn't find the original quote in context. All the sources I found seemed to relate Ellis's quote to "Earth as the center of the Universe" and I attempted to clarify the difference or get access to Ellis's quote from you.
For some reason this seems to strike you as bad faith.
No, it's a matter of you assuming that Ellis is selecting a limited set of observations to make a meaningless statement and that someone is disingenuously making that statement appear technically true while being practically false. I sense more projection on your part.
I said nothing of the sort. I wondered whether the Ellis quote was relevant to the dispute earlier in this thread -- which is a far cry from being over a limited set of observations, or meaningless, or practically false.
I realize now that you are a troll.
Plonk.
I knew what you meant when I responded. I had hoped that you would recognize your error but, since you didn't, I am forced to explain it to you.
The point is that your experience *in general* on FR is irrelevant to your communication w/ me. It is extremely self-centered of you to think that your experience w/ everyone else on FR would be applicable to your communication w/ me.
"That's because those lines were in response to a response you posted *about* me, and an inaccurate impugning of my motives. Of course my responses in such a situation are going to involve myself."
Oh I think I understood your motives very well. There appears to be an extremely self-centered personality there that expects everyone else to understand everything you post in conformity with your personal views and experiences. This can also be seen as an inability to understand the world from anyone's perspective but your own and to insist that your perspective must rule the conversation. Again we see the extreme self-focus.
"Repeating this charge does not substantiate it."
And neither does repeating the denial.
"If you hadn't been rude about my wife's birthday, the subject of cantankerousness would not have *been* broached. Unless you think mentioning a wife's birthday makes someone irascible etc...?"
Of course, we now understand that you define me as being 'rude' simply because I wasn't interested in what you and your wife do or how much you enjoy it. Again, the extreme self-focus.
"That quote was again, a response to an accusation from you -- and mentioning your quotes in the first place, and then asking for more details on them, again, is not a focus on my self."
Again, you are seriously projecting. There was no 'accusation', merely pointing out the obvious self-focus that permeates your writing. I suppose you must do this to protect the mental paradigm that you have built for yourself, but it's not anything close to reality.
"Not in the slightest, except on your part. The original food fight on this thread dealt with whether the Sun or the Earth was at the center of the Solar System...which is related to, but not identical, to the geocentrism of which you speak. And if you are considering whether the Earth is the center of the Universe then redshift does matter, which it does not for the original food fight."
Again, you are responding to your perception of what others have said rather than what I actually said. I am not them. I did not write what they did and it is disingenuous on your part to imply that I did.
And redshift does not matter in a geocentric universe. If that were the case, Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis would have noted it as the distinguishing factor preventing the equivalence of the 2 models under GR.
"I have engaged in no bad faith -- unless of course, you consider asking YOU for more details, when I could not verify your quotes, and expressly allowing for the possibility that the sources *I* found might have been wrong, while continuing to ask you, is bad faith."
You claimed not to be able to find anything in an online word search of the documents related to the quotes I posted. I then directed you to google books which was able to find the very words contained in those quotes on the pages the quotes claimed they were made. You focused on the availability of *online* resources as a red herring. You are either engaging in bad faith statements or you simply don't know what you are doing.
"And what's up with "we"? Nobody else on this thread has ever accused me of bad faith."
I didn't use "we" in connection w/ bad faith posting, now did I? It was used in connection with your continued practice of projecting your personality onto others. And just because no one besides me has made written note of your habit of projecting doesn't mean that no one besides me has noticed it. Is this more 'bad faith' posting on your part or are you just confused?
"No projection here. The question is not (as you impute to me incorrectly) whether Ellis constructed a model to fit a limited set of observations that only he selected. The question is whether he was talking about the same topic ass the earlier posters on this thread. You quoted Ellis, and I couldn't find the original quote in context. All the sources I found seemed to relate Ellis's quote to "Earth as the center of the Universe" and I attempted to clarify the difference or get access to Ellis's quote from you."
You wrote, "The Ellis quote above, out of its context, does not tell me *which* observations he is talking about." Now the only way that impacts what Ellis said was if Ellis was talking about a subset of all observations. It is irrelevant whether Ellis was talking about the same topic as previous posters. I am not arguing any previous poster's comments. Earth as the center of the universe is geocentrism, is the context of Ellis' quote and is something I have clarified for you. You appear badly confused.
"I said nothing of the sort. I wondered whether the Ellis quote was relevant to the dispute earlier in this thread -- which is a far cry from being over a limited set of observations, or meaningless, or practically false."
Your comments don't make any sense in any other context. And again, we see your insistence that we debate the subject from your perspective based on your past experience w/ other posters. This continues to be irrelevant and a symptom of extreme self-focus.
"I realize now that you are a troll."
I realize now that you are just a confused, self-centered person.
"Plonk."
Plonk.