You started it, son. My original post stuck to the topic. You were the one who first threw the personal insults. All I did was point out that this makes you look bad. I stand by that assessment.
I don't have to play Jr analyst. My PhD in clinical psych is quite sufficient for my satisfaction.
Then how sad that you're so bad at it. Your "analysis" of me is laughably wrong, and so large a leap from anything I've actually written here that it bespeaks of an enormous unprofessionalism, and an ability to "see" things where they do not exist.
Evidently your arrogance leads you to convince yourself that your statistical skills and knowledge are greater than the many internationally known experts invovled with the BCD site and related sites here and in Israel.
Evidently you're unaware that "argument from authority" is a well-known logical fallacy.
I have no arrogance on this subject, simply an honest awareness of my math skills, sufficient to follow the arguments that the BCD fans put forth, and therefore to identify when they are engaging in "dazzle 'em with numbers" instead of actual analysis.
Actually, I'm exceedingly underwhelmed by your logic and by your skills.
...based merely on the fact that I disagree with your conclusion. Which makes your following bit of childishness a better description of your own behavior in this thread than mine:
Now your biases--those appear to be Olympic class.
Physician, heal thyself.
From your posts to me and to others on this thread, it is entirely obvious that the only way you can deal emotionally with people who arrive at different conclusions than yourself is to mentally pigeonhole them as either ignorant or biased (because they couldn't *possibly* disagree with you for legitimate reasons, eh?)
Now *that's* bias and arrogance...
Methinks you're running into the same phenomena as crop circle debunkers. No matter the number of confessions to the act; no matter those who confessed also showed how they did it; no matter that researchers have replicated the most complicated cereograms using those confessed techniques -- there are people out there who still claim crop circles are all created by aliens, and attempts to explain them away are either part of a conspiracy, or don't take into account some esoteric feature known only to the true believers.
I have certainly characterized your 'logic' and points.
I don't recall characterizing your personhood as you have so liberally done with me.
I still find all your points thoroughly inadequate for serious assent or belief.
You asserted that I was the one who threw the first personal insult.
Given that I take insult to others by me very seriously, I reread the thread to this point.
You are wrong.
To this point, there were 34 posts with insults to those who believed in the codes at all. They were all much more pointed and much more attacks on persons, sanity, etc. than anything the other direction.
These insults and attacks on the Code believers personhood etc. began with post 2.
At post 169 I used the words rebellious and hedonistic to characterize unnamed skeptics' motivations for their beliefs in a very generalized rather vague comment. I and any others coming anywhere close to insult spoke of the flawed arguments etc. and virtually never assaulted the sanity, character, personhood etc. of those on the other side.
The opposite has persistently been true of your side on this thread.
I take insult seriously partly because all of us are made in God's image. And because Jim Robinson wants it that way and it's his turf.
But I make a distinction between assaulting an argument or wording or logic vs assaulting personhood, character etc.
The folks on your side--and you--seem to be compulsively driven to harshly assaulting personhood, character, sanity morality etc. and not just occasionally but with virtually every post--at least in my direction--interestingly.
I'm kind of left with the feeling that you folks have an incredible double standard.
And, I'm a bit flumoxed as to what sort of ANYTHING NEGATIVE any of us can say or what words we can use short of laudatory of every word you wrote, which you'd NOT construe as an insult or attack.
Perhaps we could say something like:
--I disagree.
--I don't find your words convincing.
--I don't think you have it right.
And perhaps similar super gentle opposing statements? But I wouldn't be surprised if you'd scream that even such phrasings were insulting.
In any case, after reviewing the thread, I'm rather comfortable with my wording. Your habits of fierce insult and hostile indignation are quite far over whatever line I may have even approached.
And your inults are not at all restricted to the logic, argument, reasoning, points etc. of those of us on our side. Your insults are pointedly personal, even viscious toward personhood, character etc. Very admirable, that.
Cheers.