MD: Look, what the heck are you trying to accomplish?
I made an offhand comment about you arguing over the definition because that is something you frequently do. Arguing with you over definitions with you is a total waste of time. You argued, on another thread, for 7 pages, over the word believe. Yet, on this thread you were able to define it in 4 words.
In your response, you stated that we can't discuss it because of an undefined term. Then you made a positive statement using the same undefined term that you complained that the author had used - without defining it. And you made this statement as if it proved something.
I believe i have debunked the article completely, and demonstrated the author is making an unscientific claim that amount to nothing else than intimidating language.
Completely? You have got to be kidding. I see where you made some claims, but you didn't demonstrate anything.
What about you? What are you doing?
I am showing why it is a waste of time trying to discuss anything with you. It is like trying to discuss something with debator or scholar. I don't agree with much that Leaving WT or Sammielee have to say, but at least they are honest and consistent and they don't pay word games.
You dont seem to defend the article, its not even clear if you agree with the author or not (and you have not read it).
Ok, think hard on this one. How can I defend an article or agree with its author if I haven't read it?
Rather you seem to single me out and, well, show the world what a bad person i am to argue with?
It is not so much you, it is about your inability to give straight answers.
So you find a question for me, namely if a word in the article has some specific meaning,
HELLO, McFLY!?! THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION I ASKED!!
and you keep asking me this even though i 6 pages back said i dont know what the author mean by that word.
And I kept telling you that was not the question I asked.
Its not a valid question -- i cannot answer it. Surely you must see that.
It would have been a valid question if you had answered the question I asked.
So i point that out to you again and again -- i cant answer your question, i dont know what meaning the author assign to that word.
And I pointed out again and again that you didn't answer my question - which I repeated again and again. For the record, the question was: " In the above statement, are you referring to the same use of "information" as in the article?"
Yes, you did answer that you didn't know what the author meant. Here's the problem, as I said early on, your use of the word "information" implies that it was the same type of information that you were claiming not to know what the author was talking about. That is the only way your "information" statement would make any sense. To say that it is not the same or you don't know is to render your statement meaningless. In the end, after endlessly dodging the question, you admit to writing a meaningless statement.
Then i finally give the answer you want me to say - "I dont know"
Actually, I really didn't care what your answer was. I just wanted a straight answer.
- and you parade it around like you have accomplished something by making me say those words.
Parade it around? What a joke. I merely pointed out that you finally gave an answer to the question that was actually asked.
but surely you could have told yourself this from the beginning.
Given the inconsistency of your statement, I honestly didn't know what your answer would be.
And what have you accomplished? It does not invalidate what i wrote about the article, and i simply dont see what it show about me.
At the very least, it shows your inability to give a straight answer. It confirmed my suspicion that you really don't read other people's posts, or maybe you have a problem grasping simple grammar. Either is rather odd for someone who presents himself as some sort of expert on information.
The best part is you accuse me of being polemic, argue over words, etc. etc. etc., but who are talking about science and who are arguing over words?
We both were. But that is where you typically start. Seven pages on the word "believe". Seven pages on this one and you still don't grasp what my question was.
It seem to me you have given up on actually arguing science, and you are now accusing others of engaging in polemic bullshit when what you have done for the past couple of days is clearly not science, rather about character and about silly questions.
I made no pretense in this thread that my discussion with you was about science. I stated very clearly it is about you obfuscating the issue before anyone could ever get to the issue. I flat said so using simple grammar. I don't know how you could have missed it. But that is assuming you actually read and comprehended the post.
Maybe next time you will think twice before you pounce on an off-hand comment and try to make hay with it.
If you want people to take you more serious, you should drop the fancy slogans ("rocks turning into men") and begin to talk about something with real content.
meh
Fancy slogans? Wow. It doesn't take much to impress you does it? BTW, I really don't understand why the thought of evolving from rocks bothers you so much. If you wish to correct me, do so. If it is unknown, what is the problem in guessing that the minerals came from rocks? You really need to take yourself less seriously.
