While one can support your quest to ‘inform’
***why do you put a quote around the word?
the world of new developments,
***That is exactly my quest, without the hint of sarcasm.
I must say that it seems you get some joy out of the controversy on YOUR threads,
***Not at all. I don’t shy away from controversy, but it isn’t enjoyable. I must say that all the personal attacks and abuse from fellow freepers is unexpected and disappointing, especially when this “new development” has been independently verified by 7 scientists.
because you work very hard to ‘engage’ others in debate.
***Again, why do you put a quote mark around the word? I agree with the statement without the intended sarcasm. I do engage others in debate. But so many people resort to classic fallacies that it’s astounding they have college degrees. Critical thinking is a freshman level, required course. Yet we see classic fallacies from people who claim graduate level exposure in sciences. It is astounding.
Why do you put three asterisks at the beginning of your sentences?
***That is exactly my quest, without the hint of sarcasm.
Nothing wrong with that.
I must say that all the personal attacks and abuse from fellow freepers is unexpected and disappointing, especially when this “new development” has been independently verified by 7 scientists.
I sympathize with you on the personal attacks, but I think the issue was that you keep insisting that this has been 'independently verified' by 7 scientists, and there seems to be considerable proof that these 7 scientists are not really 'independent'.
That still doesn't prove their conclusions wrong, but it does make one skeptical. Like Eric Holder stating that Obama did nothing wrong.
But so many people resort to classic fallacies that it’s astounding they have college degrees. Critical thinking is a freshman level, required course. Yet we see classic fallacies from people who claim graduate level exposure in sciences.
Yet you claim to trust the invention of a man who has been proven to have made falsified claims in the past. Is this not true ?