Posted on 12/10/2009 4:24:15 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
If you come across your link, it would be appreciated! ...magritte
You: Not!
You mean to say that you’ve solved the Observer Problem? This is huge! The hugest since the Shoemaker-Levy Jupiter impacts of ’94. Huger, I bet. And to think, it was first announced on FR! (It was first announced here, was it not?) When will your peer-reviewed paper be appearing? And, in what journal? They will need to run at least one additional printing.
“. . . deadpan serious, with a small group of dedicated followers in his Amen Corner, tossing out wild theories about science complete with incredible conspiracy theories to back up his opinions...it’s a guilty pleasure to read and sometimes irresistible for the real scientists on FR to respond to”
I don’t take your remarks to be malicious, so I will respond to them gently. If you read anything sarcastic in the response, either I’ve phrased something badly, or you’re reading things that aren’t there.
You could take two words in your quote above (science and scientists) and substitute three words, Judeo-Christian Traditions and Judeo-Christians, and you would have an exact summation of the thoughts of many of us belonging to that Amen Corner, as you call it (sometimes called an echo chamber by many of our less gracious antagonists).
Be careful.. the “Ghost of Christmas Purge” is roaming about...
“When will your peer-reviewed paper be appearing?”
Ah, I see you’ve bought the “peer-reviewed” Kool Aid. So sorry.
Wonder who “peer-reviewed” Newton, Galileo, the Wright brothers—oh that’s right, while the Wright brothers were flying around the “peer-reviewed” academic scientists were still publishing papers proving heavier-than-air human flight was impossible.
Global-warming science is “peer-reviewed”. I have absolutely no interest in the opinion or approval of my “peers” whom I regard as mostly fools—how many of them have bought into global-warming and every leftist idea in the world?
Hank
Amen, mom. We would all like to know those “accounts,” “many, many names” and “net IDs” GGG used to push his “crack pot theories,” including what publications and other venues. Nothing like a good National Inquirer expose to get the juices flowing. How ‘bout it, Natural Law? Put up or show yourself to be nothing more than a close relative of Harry Reid’s.
“Nearly 30 years? When was it that Al Gore invented the internet?”
As I recall, the ‘Net has been available commercially for something a little over 15 years, but a limited availability to academia for twice that period (perhaps, if my memory serves). So, if GGG has been on the ‘Net some thirty years or so, then he was one of the privileged academics who were. Can you attest to that, and on what venues,Natural Law?
“Look, we all know what GGG’s threads are all about by now. If you don’t like that sort of thing, the adult thing to do would be to simply avoid them.” - Jim Robinson -
Oops. That’s going to put you on the outs with the self-declared defenders of science.
I’ve made comments like that and gotten shredded for it.
Peer review is a sacred cow in spite of things like Climategate and the Bogdanov Affair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
If you're putting yourself in the same class with those boys, then you've problems that far out weigh your inability to demonstrate that you have no bias.
"Global-warming science is “peer-reviewed”. I have absolutely no interest in the opinion or approval of my “peers” whom I regard as mostly fools—how many of them have bought into global-warming and every leftist idea in the world?"
You ought to feel right at home with this last bunch you mention. You can't back up what you say either.
“You can’t back up what you say either.”
Back it up to whom for what? Do you think I care what you or anyone else thinks about my opinions or me?
I live my life by the principles I know to be true. You live yours in any way you choose. But I have to say one thing out of kindness, ff you do not have enough character to know you are right without the approval and agreement of others, you are a second-hander who will never know what true freedom and integrity are.
You second-hander collectivists will never understand the independent individualist. I wrote the following article years ago for those who were truly independent individualists so they would learn they never had to apologize to the likes of you.
http://theautonomist.com/autonomist/articles13/hated.html
Hank
I already told Natural Plagiarizer to put up for shut up. He hasn’t been able to put up, but of course that hasn’t shut him up either. He has no morals, and just loves to accuse others of what he himself is guilty of.
http://www.ediacara.org/ted.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/holden.html
http://www.bearfabrique.org/
http://www.skepticfiles.org/neocat/rose.htm
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/teds_intermed.html
http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?showtopic=8663&st=140
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/sauropods.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ted-qfa-reply.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/teds-world.html
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/fort.html
http://www.the-fed.org/articles/volume20/issue6/dino.html
http://www.velikovskian.com/backissu.htm
http://wiki.killfile.org/mirror/net.legends/1/
Let me know when you are done h these, there are a lot more where they came from.
"Nearly 30 years? When was it that Al Gore invented the internet?"
He was publishing crap long before the internet was commercially available.
”Do you think I care what you or anyone else thinks about my opinions or me?”
Obviously you do or you would not bear so hostile a demeanor.
You’ve made a reckless brag you cannot support. Now you think to bull your way through with bluster and aggressiveness. Pee Wee Herman with a ball bat.
“. . . do not have enough character to know you are right without the approval and agreement of others”
Compounding your error by demonstrating your ignorance of the purpose for peer review. Peer review is not done to seek approval. It is done to catch error. Error in the data; in the methodology; in the statistical base; in the reasoning or the logic of the construction or the conclusions of the study; error where ever it is to be found. It may be difficult for you to understand this, since you seem unable to admit it in yourself, but people do commit error, and the peer review process is intended to correct this human failing, the sometime obvious abuse of the process notwithstanding.
Now, I’m going limit the further humiliation you can do to yourself by closing with an offer to you that you may have the last word.
Getting the feeling we're not really dealing with adults here yet??
Have had that feeling for a long time now (not in all cases though)
Chatting with yourself? Is this your Norman Bates personna? Say “hi” to TomZZ and rickydylan for me too.
Reread my post. I didn't state that GGG had been posting on the internet for 30 years I said he had developed, published and posted over a three decade period. With comprehension skills like that it is no wonder you did so poorly at science.
Say goodnight, Ted.
Follow your own advice. Besides the ‘Net, I specifically inquired “what publications and other venues,” since you seemed rather vague, stumbling all over the place. Now, in trying to avoid the question and in trying to play the big Alpha hoo-haw in this place, you’ve managed to call into question your own reading comprehension. You’ve kicked up a lot of dust and made a lot of noise, but other than that, all you’ve done is make yourself look petty and foolish.
But, if that’s the best you can do . . .
You had to use HTML????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.