Quote:
Quote by: Kuroko  I refuse to be drawn so low as to prove to you that a kettle calling the pot black is some what ironic/hypocritical.
When you cease to make spelling mistakes then you may begin highlighting others, I think that is a right others deserve.
If you didn't understand what I mean by that, proclaiming some one is not perfect means nothing when you yourself, have not witnessed and definitely have not achieved such a state Gallo. |
I understand. You are saying that you can't represent your position rationally, with proper grammar and correct spelling. So let me see. You found one case where I typed "my be" where I should have typed "maybe." Ah, well. I never claimed to be perfect. And my error, had it been in a paper, would have caused it to be rejected for publication. But on the other hand, we're typing in real time here. My bet is that I make fewer typos than you, that I make fewer spelling errors than you, and that I make fewer grammatical errors than you. I am actually quite comfortable operating at a zero error level. It is required in my world. And even if your idea actually had some scientific significance, your inability to express it (correct spelling, grammar, word usage, etc.) would get your paper rejected. You don't express what you want to say very clearly.
The point is, you are professing expertise in subjects of which you have no knowledge. After I tell you why you are wrong and I hear back from you that I don't understand or that I didn't read what you said, it gets to a point that there is little to do but to show why it is more likely that you are speaking from ignorance than not. The problem isn't that I don't give your ideas some thought. The problem is that I do. And I have responded in an effort to instruct you.
What you don't seem to understand is that your ideas aren't worth spit in a scientific context until you can offer evidence, form an hypothesis, make a prediction, design and execute an experiment, write a paper and submit it for peer review. When it gets published, let's talk.
Otherwise you have a fantasy. Talking about science isn't science.
(Please count the misspelled words in this post - let me know)
Please don't take this as an ad hominem attack. It isn't. It is an explanation. You assert things that violate current science and give no evidence why we should overthrow science in your favor, except that you can imagine it.
Your fantasy doesnt get consideration until you get it published. Until then, there is no obligation to show that you are wrong. You have the obligation to show that you are right. Again, hypothesis, prediction, experiment.