Disappointed with the manners on these forums

[jj]

It seems like some folks wish to leap into conversations half-informed, make accusations, and then fall back into defensive insults when confronted with the results of their ill-mannered behavior.

Others seem to confuse truthfulness with brutality, and unhappiness with positive outcomes.

Perhaps some of those with more patience than I can explain how that sort of behavior is expected to increase anyone's welfare, the ill-mannered included.

P.S. Maybe this ought to be in another forum, but this is, after all, a discussion of "social science".

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by jj
Perhaps some of those with more patience than I can explain how that sort of behavior is expected to increase anyone's welfare, the ill-mannered included.The simplest answer is that it isn't meant to increase anyone's welfare. That would imply a rationality to peoples actions which I simply do not see in everyday life. I don't expect to see it here.

Walt

[QuarkChild]

My impression is that some people do not realize that the manner in which they present their ideas impacts the reception of the their ideas. For example, take The Moderator Issue. I noticed in some of the threads that Win (and other people, but I only remember that one name off the top of my head) was augmenting his arguments with personal attacks. I think that by resorting to personal attacks, he significantly decreased the chance of anyone appreciating whatever merit his arguments may have had. In other words, although insulting one's opponents is tempting, it is counter-productive to one's efforts to change people's attitudes.

A simpler example: one time a newbie (a woo-woo, if I remember correctly) made his/r opening post with ALL CAPITAL LETTERS!!!!! not realizing that most forum members would be less likely to take his/r seriously because of it. A few posters attacked the person's post, and then someone finally told the original poster, "Hey, since you're a newbie here we'll give the benefit of the doubt, but just so you know, we don't appreciate being condescended to by having messages delvered in all caps. If you switch to lower case, your arguments will be less likely to be dismissed out of hand." (Or something like that. I'm paraphrasing.)
Anyway, the poster actually got the hint, and switched to lower case, with better results.

So anyway, I think in some cases it is simply ignorance. Some people do not perceive the effect that their ad hominem attacks have on their credibility.
Of course, it could be that some people do perceive the effect, but cannot overcome the temptation to insult people anyway...

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by jj
It seems like some folks wish to leap into conversations half-informed, make accusations, and then fall back into defensive insults when confronted with the results of their ill-mannered behavior.

Others seem to confuse truthfulness with brutality, and unhappiness with positive outcomes.

Perhaps some of those with more patience than I can explain how that sort of behavior is expected to increase anyone's welfare, the ill-mannered included.



Hi JJ,

I in no way leaped into the conversation half-informed. I was one of the main contributors to the thread that the conversation spun off of. You contributed to the thread, did you even read my posts or the responses?

I got called a woowoo for suggesting that RBL stop drinking so much CocaCola! And, god forbid, that human beings can learn self control.

THATS why I got angry and lashed out. Its incredibly frustrating dealing with these people and I just got sick of it. If you read SteveGrenard's (who works with the obese) posts in my thread, you will see he experiences the same amount of frustration and often gets angry. And guess what, he saves these peoples lives.

Apparently you, QuarkChild, and others feel it displays poor manners to get angry with people who engage in self destructive behavior. Maybe it is, but if it saves someones life its worth it. When RSL succumbs to an obesiety related illness, I will know that I took a chance and at least TRIED to stop him. The back-patting of people like QC does nothing more than push him closer to the edge of an open grave.

Regarding manners in online forums in general jj, I have three words for you.

Pot.
Kettle.
Black.

[MRC_Hans]

Of course there must be room for sentiment, otherwise forums like these would be pretty boring. However, it would be well to remember that anger or bad manners, while possibly justified, do at the very best contribute zero to the progress of a debate. At worst (and quite often) such things serve to derail the debate completely.

It is true that a short-tempered, ill mannered participant may be as well-informed and well-qualified as anybody else, but plain psycology tells you that somebody who flies off the handle at the slightest provocation is less likely to have a clear and objective viewpoint.

Hans

[Dancing David]

Well, JJ:
Speaking poorly is something I am well versed in. There are a couple of issues that I think happen here on the boards.

1. There is safety in anonymity, people feel comfortable typing things on BBs they wouldn't say face to face.

2. Conversly there is intimacy on BBs, people feel assaulted on BBs in ways that they wouldn't in public.

3.Anonymity leads to an inherent lack of trust on the part of many BB user, if you don't claim to be an authority and vette your credentials everyone assumes your a poseur.

4. A concensus can occur in communities over what is known and proven and what is acceptable speculation. there can be 'standards' on a bulletin board that are unwritten, newbies tend to break these rules.

5. More seasoned users of a BB tend to form opinions on who is credible and who isn't based on thier past history, this leads to strong feelings when a credible poster is assaulted.

Ramble ramble ramble, and those are just surface observations.

Peace

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
The simplest answer is that it isn't meant to increase anyone's welfare. That would imply a rationality to peoples actions which I simply do not see in everyday life. I don't expect to see it here.

Walt

A lot of game theory is based on the premise of rational actors. When you introduce irrational actors, the possibility of "competitors" accidentally ganging up and causing an unexpected shift in the outcome emerges.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had an article on this topic in the B section--game theory applied (or misapplied) to criminal and terrorist behavior. Some rather scary outcomes are possible when you remove the assumption of basic rationality.

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I in no way leaped into the conversation half-informed. I was one of the main contributors to the thread that the conversation spun off of. You contributed to the thread, did you even read my posts or the responses?


Defensive, aren't we? As anyone who read my articles could tell, the other fellow (edited to clarify: Hazelip) lept into the discussion, excoriating me for some incomprehensible reason, while not realizing that there was a history of discussion that (gasp, imagine that) may go back beyond one thread.

So, in a nutshell, I wasn't talking about you, there.

I was certainly thinking of you when I was thinking of the actual effect that you might have on a morbidly obese person. You're assuming that your anger would help your case. I think that's a bad, bad assumption.

Why would you assume otherwise? :D

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Regarding manners in online forums in general jj, I have three words for you.

Pot.
Kettle.
Black.

Would you like to rethink that, son?

I dare say that your desire to be "king of the hill" is showing.

The number of suborned issues in your response is pretty amazing, let's see if I can identify some just for kicks.

1) ad-hom "did you even read"...
2) ... "learn self-control"... Here we go back to the first thread I think I contributed on on this board, give or take a few. I won't judge RSL, you may or may not be right, but the statement can't be made universally. This isn't the first time I've felt obliged to do that.
3) The difference between you and Steve is that he tries to temper his reactions to cause positive outcomes. All you do is drive people off. Being right is only half the story when you're dealing with something that, as you point out, is irrational. to ask then for rationality is inconsistancy on your part. Wishing for it, certainly, expecting it? No.
4) I think it's poor manners for secondary contributors in a thread (i.e. the one who seemed to think that this thread was all there was of the discussion between you and I on the subject) to leap in misinformed and make misformed accusations based, as far as I can tell, on simple mindreading. Why you are objecting to this (and you have, under the guise of self-defense even though you weren't cited) is beyond me.
5) "The back-patting..." Frankly, I disagree. You don't know the fellow. If he has a reactive nature, you've pushed him harder than anyone else in the wrong direction.
6) "pot kettle black" - Pure adhominem. There are times and places where manners and polite behavior are pointless, but this isn't one of them.

So, explain your disgraceful behavior or not, it's noted and sent to memory in any case.

[QuarkChild]

Apparently you, QuarkChild, and others feel it displays poor manners to get angry with people who engage in self destructive behavior. Maybe it is, but if it saves someones life its worth it

You missed my point completely. Getting angry decreases your chances of saving someone's life. Your arguments will be taken more seriously if you can present them in a calm and rational manner.

If you want to help someone, the last thing that you should do is antagonize them. It may be tempting, but it is counter-productive to your cause.

[edthedoc]

At times I've almost given up using this forum because of the often juvenile, pointless rubbish people post in the middle of decent threads. Last time I complained about this I just got abuse.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by QuarkChild


You missed my point completely. Getting angry decreases your chances of saving someone's life. Your arguments will be taken more seriously if you can present them in a calm and rational manner.

If you want to help someone, the last thing that you should do is antagonize them. It may be tempting, but it is counter-productive to your cause.

Thank You Q child, hard enough to help people overcome thier issues in getting help without abusing them when they do get ready to ask.

Obesity is more than just a self control issue, most obese people are not happy with thier bodies, and other people harping on it doesn't help.

Peace

[spoonhandler]

EvilYeti - I've read the entire thread started by RSL with all your posts included. You now appear to be suggesting that you were attempting to help RSL, but I draw your attention to this: Please keep your tales of woe to yourself. I have no interest in hearing them. These are your words, from your second post to the thread. Also, from the same post: Gluttony has been a sin since the biblical times and for good reason. You have expressed frustration that people labelled you a 'fundie': I would suggest your statement here was the trigger for this. You expressed the opinion that being overweight/obese was morally wrong, when it is only bad from a medical point of view and irrelevant with regards to the quality of someone's character.

Please don't continue with your attempts to argue that you were speaking in RSL's best interests. You responded to his post with terms that made it clear you found him and people like him disgusting and that his problem was, to you, trivial beyond belief. SteveGrenard uses blunt honesty to try to convince patients to take a good, long, hard look at themselves and realise they are going to die young simply from overeating. RSL's post was a warning to others in a similar vein, looking at other quality-of-life issues in the hope that perhaps someone younger and not as far down the track as he is might wake up to themselves. Your response was: Please keep your tales of woe to yourself. I have no interest in hearing them. I presume, as a scientist, you are capable of not reading things you find offensive, irrelevant or boring. You had every right not to read RSL's post or to respond. You chose to contribute, but your comprehension skills need work as you seemed to interpret RSL's post as a plea for understanding from furniture manufacturers and roller coaster designers.

One would almost think you're a reviewer for a funding body or journal with that kind of interpretation and response.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by jj

Defensive, aren't we?

So, in a nutshell, I wasn't talking about you, there.

Well, first you bastardize my topic, then parrot an accusation that has been leveled at me at least a dozen times. What else would I think?

I was certainly thinking of you when I was thinking of the actual effect that you might have on a morbidly obese person. You're assuming that your anger would help your case. I think that's a bad, bad assumption.

Why would you assume otherwise? :D

There is no assuming going on. I was angry because I was tired of RSL's whining and sick of being called a scientific ignoramus for offering him sound dietary advice. I had no interest in making a case, only speaking my mind, which is my right. As I've said, many times now, I don't care about the personal attacks on myself. Its the junk science that is going unchallenged on this board that worries me.

Edited: To reflect the poor quality of the discourse on this thread by its author and its subsequent low rating I've modified the content of this message.

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Well, first you plagarize my topic, then parrot an accusation that has been leveled at me at least a dozen times. What else would I think?


Do I understand that you are accusing me of plagarism?

I require your retraction.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by jj

Would you like to rethink that, son?


No. You are at least an order of magnitude more rude than I in online discussions. As far as I know I am not on anyone's ignore list. Can you say the same?

Anyone who is curious can feel free check our relative histories for themselves. I respect your opinions jj, but online decorum is not I topic you can lecture on with any authority.

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


No. You are at least an order of magnitude more rude than I in online discussions. As far as I know I am not on anyone's ignore list. Can you say the same?

Heh. You certainly can't say that. You have no way of knowing, and neither do I.


Anyone who is curious can feel free check our relative histories for themselves. I respect your opinions jj, but online decorum is not I topic you can lecture on with any authority.

Indeed, and they will show that I support my positions, don't run from them, and don't make serious professional accusations like accusing someone of plagarism without clear evidence.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by QuarkChild

You missed my point completely. Getting angry decreases your chances of saving someone's life. Your arguments will be taken more seriously if you can present them in a calm and rational manner.


Wrong. Please read SteveGrenard's posts in my thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19755)

He works with the obese on a daily basis and saves many, many patients lives every year. He and I are in total agreement. In some cases there is just no way to deal with these people other then getting angry with them. Sometimes they just don't listen.

[Jeff Corey]

What is this all about? I was trying to install an Ethernet card on my HP motherboard and haven't been following this. I thought it was about that Dull Dian who kept calling people "morons" and "develpmentally epistomologicaaly challenged." And things with a lot of *s.

"Why can't we just get along?"
Rodney King

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by jj


Indeed, and they will show that I support my positions, don't run from them, and don't make serious professional accusations like accusing someone of plagarism without clear evidence.

My thread:
"Disappointed with these Forums"

Your thread:
"Disappointed with the manners on these forums "

And with no reference, cite, or attribution to my thread.

Edit your first post to provide a footnote and link to my thread and I will retract my accusation.

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


My thread:
"Disappointed with these Forums"

Your thread:
"Disappointed with the manners on these forums "

And with no reference, cite, or attribution to my thread.

Edit your first post to provide a footnote and link to my thread and I will retract my accusation.

I shall do no such thing, and you shall retract your completely illicit accusation immediately.

I am, as you are quite well aware, mocking your thread, and your horrid manners in that thread.

That does not, simply does not, constitute plagarism.

And you know that as well as I do.

I require the retraction NOW.

[spoonhandler]

EvilYeti - I say again, your posts were not of the same nature as SteveGrenard's. Compare this: EvilYeti: Please keep your tales of woe to yourself. I have no interest in hearing them. to this: SteveGrenard: RSL is an on-line friend. I have no idea of his circumstances but I have heard his tale a thousand times from others. So now I will be yelling at him if he gives me the opening. If not this what are friends for? You're in for it now Bobby boy.
Your accusation of plagiarism is as ridiculous as your stance that you contributed to RSL's thread in an effort to help him.

By the way, not being on an ignore list doesn't mean people respect what you have to say. I don't put anyone on ignore.

[QuarkChild]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Wrong. Please read SteveGrenard's posts in my thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19755)

He works with the obese on a daily basis and saves many, many patients lives every year. He and I are in total agreement. In some cases there is just no way to deal with these people other then getting angry with them. Sometimes they just don't listen.
I read his posts. I am not presuming to know his business better than he does. Rather, I am making a claim about your own debate tactics on this forum. You posted a photo of a starving child on RSL's thread. I cannot understand this behavior except as an attempt to be inflammatory and antagonistic, and I argue that if your goal in doing so was to help RSL, then your methods are counterproductive to your goal. Could a doctor help his patients by confronting them with the consequences of their actions? I will take SteveGrenard's word for it that it is so. But what do you achieve by posting inflammatory content on this message board? RSL is not more likely to listen to you if you antagonize him.

If you were merely trying to "speak your mind," that is your prerogative and I would not seek to deter you. On the other hand, if you are trying to help RSL, then I believe your methods are misguided, and I think you should be aware of how the manner of your posting affects the reception of it. A doctor can be confrontational if s/he has credibility. You are not in the same position as a doctor. Your moral judgments will only serve to arouse the resentment of your audience, and diminish your credibility on the forum, thus detracting from your position.

So which is it? Were you trying to express your anger, or were you trying to be helpful? If the former, then we have nothing to discuss. If the latter, then I think you are not conveying your ideas in the most effective manner.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by spoonhandler
EvilYeti - I say again, your posts were not of the same nature as SteveGrenard's. Compare this: to this:
Your accusation of plagiarism is as ridiculous as your stance that you contributed to RSL's thread in an effort to help him.

By the way, not being on an ignore list doesn't mean people respect what you have to say. I don't put anyone on ignore.

I'm not talking about our posts, I'm talking about his beside manner. And I quote:

"I identify with the emotional and passionate side of science, I endure it everyday when I am confronted by patients with behavioral issues where weight is concerned. I have had any number of patients that myself and colleagues would actually get into fights with , well verbal altercations (I do yell at patients sometimes), because they just don't get it and it is frustrating."

How is that any different from me getting frustrated? Steve gets frustrated at work, I got frustrated on this board. If I'm wrong he's wrong too.

Whats the difference?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
What is this all about? I was trying to install an Ethernet card on my HP motherboard and haven't been following this. I thought it was about that Dull Dian who kept calling people "morons" and "develpmentally epistomologicaaly challenged." And things with a lot of *s.


Mostly my fault. I made the mistake of offering some dietary advice to a morbidly obese forum member and got accused of being a bigot, scientifically ignorant and a "woowoo".

I took exception to this and retaliated by posting a picture of a starving child to another thread lamenting the problems the morbidly obese face in day to day life. This all happened on "Banter".

I expanded the topic to the science section as I was concerned of the amount of junk science that was getting thrown around on banter unchallenged. The discussion is now focused on me being a mean *******. Feel free to comment!

Sorry to hear about the HP motherboard. I hope it uses less ink cartridges than my HP printer, those things are expensive! :D

[spoonhandler]

EvilYeti - You're asking what the difference is between Steve's bedside manner and your posts to RSL's thread?

Steve has explained his expertise/profession. He is involved in research into alleviating sleep apnoea and frequently encounters morbidly obese patients who are at risk of suffocating in their sleep. He understands that most of these patients do not have a thyroid disorder or some other characterised metabolic problem that contributes to their weight. He sees them face to face and speaks with them and tries to help them. When someone doesn't seem to get the message, he uses more forceful tactics. He gives them the plain, honest truth. I imagine he would say something like: "You eat too much and you're going to die. Next time you reach for a biscuit, think about how your kids are going to look at your funeral, dwarfed by your oversized coffin!" I can see that for some people, this might be the wake-up call they need.

I do not imagine that Steve listens to them describe their symptoms of sleep apnoea and then, in an effort to help them, show them a photo of starving child about to become a snack for a nearby vulture. I do not imagine him telling them about third world famine and disease. His posts do not suggest he uses words like 'pathetic', 'disgusting' or 'glutton' when speaking with his patients, even though he might think these things in his head. He almost certainly does not say "Please keep your tales of woe to yourself. I have no interest in hearing them." Your posts didn't express the frustration Steve expressed in his posts or to his patients. Your posts weren't in the nature of Hazelip's brand of cold hard reality as he sees it. Your posts were provacative, ill-reasoned and self-righteous. You failed to demonstrate any of the scientific reasoning you claim to have at your disposal and argued that as a scientist, it was natural to allow passion to rule your argument. You did not comprehend the content of RSL's post, you repsonded with vitriol and claims of moral superiority and you then started a thread complaining that no one took you seriously (and you have recently stated that you're sick and tired of people who complain about things).

I don't know if you're a bigot, but it would seem you misread a post, posted something you thought represented a straight-from-the-hip witticism, received criticism for your misinterpretation, attempted to fight back and would now have us think you've been misunderstood. I'm a scientist, you're a scientist, so we both understand, do we not, that you need to consider what you say carefully when you voice your 'informed' opinion or wear the consequences when others point out the flaws in your argument. Your intent at the beginning of RSL's thread was clear. If it's not what you meant to say, apologise, retract and begin again.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by spoonhandler

Blah, blah, blah, blah....


You know what spoonhandler, I'm done with you.

I don't know what bug is up your ass, but I'm sick and tired of this debate. As I've said, about a dozen times now, I am not concerned about adhom attacks against me. I deliberately flamed RSL and got flamed back. I'm not surprised at the reaction; my intent was to be provacative and foster lively debate, not have a dry scientific discussion.

I got called a bunch of names in response. I don't care. Thats not and has never been my point.

My point always was/is that many posters on this board are posting junk science on this topic, calling real scientists who know better "woowoos" and not being challenged.

I'm happy with the feedback I've recieved. An actual, real-life expert in the treatment of obesity supports my position. Other well spoken individuals have come forward as well. That's enough to keep me on these boards.

Thanks guys!

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

I'm not surprised at the reaction; my intent was to be provacative and foster lively debate, not have a dry scientific discussion.


Careful when you go out in the sun, Yeti, you might yet turn to stone.

Now, about your accusation of plagarism. I'm still waiting. I do not expect to be waiting much longer.:mad:

[spoonhandler]

:D

I get it now. You wrote: Disappointed with these Forums
Hi Everyone.

I've had a recent experience with these boards that I find a bit troubling.

In some threads on the banter forum I spoke my mind regarding my opinion of the obesity epidemic in America.

I have been called a bigot, an idiot, accused of being jealous of fat people (?) etc... which is all well and good. After all, its banter and what not.

I've also been accused of being a "woo-woo", a fundie Christian and dismissively encouraged to study "science".

This is not so well and good. See, I'm an actual real NSF funded scientist. I'm not proud, but hey its what I do to pay the bills.

My critics are not.

I'm getting the distinct impression that a sizeable chunk of the contributors of this board are about as familiar with critical thinking and the scientific method as John Edwards, yet somehow still consider themselves "skeptics". I find people like this orders of magnitude more irritating than your typical "woowoo".

I'm thinking of restricting myself to the Academic forums in the future, the quality of discourse seems to be much higher.

Comments?

And here we are at the final twist. What an interesting lesson this has been for all of us. Thanks for being 'done' with me.

Originally posted by jj


Careful when you go out in the sun, Yeti, you might yet turn to stone.

Now, about your accusation of plagarism. I'm still waiting. I do not expect to be waiting much longer.:mad:

Evil Yeti :

Please do it. JJ is getting upset , and he is a correct poster. He NEVER did an insult. Beleive me if you can.
He always stayed on the topic presenting evidences of his affirmations. Beleive again if you can.

Please do it , he deserves a lot of considerations.He is an example of how a poster should be when is having a debate. Beleive again (if you can ) :He never used the insult. He always "was" insulted.
----------------------------------------------------------
Quote by JJ

It seems like some folks wish to leap into conversations half-informed, make accusations, and then fall back into defensive insults when confronted with the results of their ill-mannered behavior.

--------------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
S&S

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by spoonhandler
:D

I get it now. You wrote: And here we are at the final twist. What an interesting lesson this has been for all of us. Thanks for being 'done' with me.

Are you serious? You never read that until now?

Well that was an utter waste of time! :mad:

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by jj

Now, about your accusation of plagarism. I'm still waiting. I do not expect to be waiting much longer.:mad:

You know jj, I've been a big fan and have read your posts on various boards and usenet groups since 1996. You seem to average about 5-7 demands for a retraction a week. So far I have yet to actually see one.

Isn't there a time to just, well, give up? Acknowledge the futility of the practice? This is the internet man, journalistic integrity gets checked at the door.

What do you do the people that refuse to comply? Call them on their cell phone while in a meeting and play the "brown sound"? Stick green magic markers up their nose? Inquiring Yeti's want to know.

Hmmm.... there is the mysterious manner in which Zipster died... I wonder... :rolleyes:

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
This is the internet man, journalistic integrity gets checked at the door.


I once again repeat my demand.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by jj


I once again repeat my demand.

Ask nicely and its a done deal!

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Ask nicely and its a done deal!

Retract your accuastion.

Or else.

That's as nice as it's going to get.

[spoonhandler]

EvilYeti: Your comprehension skills really do need work. The post I quoted, your opening remarks on your thread, was the starting point for me. I was illustrating how you were the one who requested comments on how people responded to your posts and how you particularly seemed to want 'fellow' scientists to discuss the issue with you. I provided comment: you disliked the fact that my comments did not support you. In a later post you asked me why your comments were different in nature to SteveGrenard's. I explained the difference. You then told me you were done with me. You changed your position so many times throughout the discussion, I was left with the mental image of a rag twisting in the wind. Maybe I should have used the phrase "final squirm" instead. What I got from your "I'm done with you" post was that you do not in fact have a stance at all. I just had to laugh. And laugh. And laugh.

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Ask nicely and its a done deal!

I'm still waiting.

Now. Retract.

[Hazelip]

Well, Yeti, I got called a Nazi for my comments.

The thing is, I'm willing to change my opinion, if people can prove their claims. I make all my claims based either upon evidence, or a lack of evidence. If I have no evidence of flying pink unicorns, then I do not believe they exist.

Apparently, that makes me a Nazi. :rolleyes:

Now, as for being half-informed...I was not aware that perfect and total knowledge was a requirement for participating in these forums.

If I make a claim or statement, someone provides evidence that contradicts my claims or statements, I then change my opinions, claims, and statements, isn't that the purpose of these forums? To discuss, argue a little bit, and learn?

[jj]

Originally posted by Hazelip
Well, Yeti, I got called a Nazi for my comments.

The thing is, I'm willing to change my opinion, if people can prove their claims. I make all my claims based either upon evidence, or a lack of evidence. If I have no evidence of flying pink unicorns, then I do not believe they exist.

Apparently, that makes me a Nazi. :rolleyes:

Now, as for being half-informed...I was not aware that perfect and total knowledge was a requirement for participating in these forums.

If I make a claim or statement, someone provides evidence that contradicts my claims or statements, I then change my opinions, claims, and statements, isn't that the purpose of these forums? To discuss, argue a little bit, and learn?

It's interesting that you ran over here to make this complaint, instead of having this discussion where you started it.

You have made quite a few expert-seeming assertions. Given the strength and vigor of your assertions, it is hardly unreasonable of me to expect that you have thoroughly and completely read the literature, in which case you already know the proof of what you ask.

Of course, if you haven't thoroughly reviewed the literature, it seems more than a bit rash of you to emit all of these draconian, expert-phrased assertions.

So which is it? Do you already know for a fact what you're demanding I prove, or are you speaking in an expert tone without studying the literature?

Btw, who called you a "nazi"?

Oh, and Yeti, you are running out of time. Retract your libelous accusation of plagarism completely and without qualification.