RC vs CC again

[David Love]

I don't see any reason to muddy up the list any further with this kind of
gibberish.  Time to move on.

David Love
davidlovepianos@earthlink.net


> [Original Message]
> From: Richard Brekne <Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no>
> To: <davidlovepianos@earthlink.net>; Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Date: 10/13/2003 12:15:04 PM
> Subject: Re: RC vs CC again
>
>
>
> 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
>