David Love wrote: > Don't know him at all. I responded to the language. The reply quoted > below came in response to my comments which said, yes, let's look at the > math and not make the mistake of confusing anecdotal evidence with science. > Those comments didn't warrant a sermon and that's what I got. Get off my > case and quit trying to be everybody's hero. > David... I am not on your case... I didnt reply rudely to you at all, tried to keep it light.. I am not being everybody's hero but I do find it odd that you get so darned aggressive so easily... especially considering some of the accusations about others you throw around. You seem to feel its ok to drop whatever comment you want, but cant handle somebody dropping anything that can remotely resemble one back. > That being said, you are right, I don't know a lot about the technical > aspects of this subject which is why I have followed it so carefully. I > still agree with Ron N. whose approach of trying to establish a common base > from which to work made sense since there seems to be so much disagreement > about the fundamentals. Some people, you included, seem so hung up on > opinion based on anecdotal evidence and theoretical speculations at the > exclusion of the science that the conversation has largely become redundant > and useless. I find this topic strange in that people seem so emotionally > caught up in it. When somebody offers a rational, mathematically based > explanation for things that have one, they seem to be labeled as a heretic > or accused of representing their own self interests. People thought the > earth was flat once too, and burned witches at the stake. I guess we are > not so far removed from that, are we? Is that provocative enough for you > Ric? I think I will step out of this RC/CC conversation for awhile, > though. I'm not seeing much progress, nor, I will admit, contributing to > it. I have no problem with anyone wanting to establish any meaningful dialouge or common base for disscussion. Nor do I have a problem with anyone using mathmatics pr science appropriately. I do have a problem when people say they want open disscussion, but display quite a different attitude when somebody raises a dissagreeing finger. You say you have only rudimentary knowledge in these matters, but are capable of judging who is being rational, and who is not ? ... and to the degree you feel justified in talking to people thus ? You talk about others getting emotionally involved ??? What is this ? As far as I can see, Calin simply stated what most should already know about what is and what isnt a good approach to science. I see absolutely no reason for this outburst at all. > > David Love > davidlovepianos@earthlink.net > Here we have it again... Somebody new comes on... offering a different idea or explaination to things then what a select few feel is << the way of things >> and..... sigh. -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC