On 24-9-2014 11:20, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Thanks for your self-righteous closed-minded claim, very stupid IMO,
> because ironically you're doing exactly the opposite to what you just
> say you are, and helps confirm my point of semi-civilized.

Asking someone to be polite is not the same as being close minded.
And again the fact that your expression is limited comes from the fact 
that you are a guest on a private server. And it is not the content that 
is limited, but merely the ways you can express them. So stop answering 
friendly advise by insults. Be glad you have (had?) so many friends here.

So, don't answer this post, just think about this:
When a group of people independently take the time to send the message 
that the way you communicate is not bringing your points across then 
either the whole world is mad except you, or they might have a point.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.09.2014 07:40, schrieb Saul Luizaga:

> But you made a mistake: I made about 6 posts with links, and only the
> first 2 had no comments because I thought the title and its repetition
> in the link would have sufficed as such. As I wrote on another post, my
> intention is to give you news, to inform NOT REALLY DISCUSS, [...]
>
> I define asshole someone that in a very unconsidered way makes fast and
> stupid judgements , and that Doctor John was 1, because I had the best
> intentions when I came here to DISCUSS, [...]
>
> I'm glad your memories of me were rather pleasant, my intention is t
> have a good time DISCUSSING, [...]

[emphasis added]

There's some contradiction here.

The point is that the first quoted paragraph is how your posts came 
through here. What we're telling you right now is that your posts are 
missing the target audience here, who /do/ like to discuss stuff with 
someone coming through as an open-minded person, but do /not/ like to be 
fed news or information from someone coming through as a zealot evangelist.

Let me emphasize that I'm not calling you a zealot evangelist. I'm 
talking about how you come across, and I'm also oversimplifying and 
exaggerating a tad to better make my point.

In my personal case though, that tad is becoming smaller and smaller 
with every post you've made since I raised the issue. Which again isn't 
to say that you're a bad person - you're a person using ineffective 
means to reach the audience in this newsgroup. And rather than offend 
people openly telling you that they won't listen to you anymore, you 
should step back and rethink your means - at least if your primary 
intention is to get you message across, rather than just feel good 
knowing that you proclaimed it.

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.09.2014 08:59, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> Stephen wrote:
>> other parts of the English speaking world.
>> If you had said to me what you wrote to the good doctor. You would be
>> eating through a straw. That is how offensive I found it.
>
> I will say to you what ever I want how ever I want if I see it fit and I
> can help it, you'd be realizing that in person accomplishing your
> physical violence threat is a lot harder than you think it might be, I
> guarantee you that.

Ouch. You're really, really, absolutely, positively losing the very 
moral high ground you're fighting for.

Stephen isn't threatening you at all. He's expressing how he /would/ 
have reacted if you had said those words into his face, to illustrate 
how insulting your comment to Doc John came across for him.


Campaigning for a better world by throwing insults and being stubborn - 
that's like the proverbial fucking for virginity.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 15:53, clipka wrote:
> Stephen isn't threatening you at all. He's expressing how he /would/
> have reacted if you had said those words into his face, to illustrate
> how insulting your comment to Doc John came across for him.

Thank you. I am glad you pointed that out.
It is also a cultural thing considered funny.
Other like sayings from the Glasgow of my youth are:

Do you like hospital food?*

Can your mother sew? Well get her to stitch this. (With hand movements 
of drawing a knife across a face.)**
Not to be taken seriously.
But I fall foul of my own remark about cultural differences. For which I 
apologise.

* I actually said that to an actor when he tried to get me to go on a 
West End, stage (to be the butt of a joke). If I had realised that it 
was his first night in the part I would not have.
[Edit] He was Welsh so knew the context but the lost the plot. He did 
make a good recovery and told the rest of the audience what I had said. 
More power to his elbow.


** Did I hear someone say "Poison Dwarf***"? ;-)

*** German term for Scottish Solders in WWI

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.09.2014 11:12, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> clipka wrote:
>> And yes, I also /do/ take that with rational, skeptical and critical
>> thinking: There is a certain gut feeling
>
> This is an oximoron that proves you wrong right there; so no you're not,
> you're having an emotional response, you don't even know what it is, and
> obviously haven't analyzed, but there you are trusting in it, which begs
> the question, isn't this an argument from ignorance?

No, it's an argument from experience: Disconnecting yourself from your 
gut feelings is a bad thing to do, because you're disconnecting yourself 
from something that is part of you, and serves a purpose. The right 
thing to do is to accept their existence, and examine what's behind 
them. And that's exactly what I've learned to do.

> My only bad did was insulting Doctor John, so don't unfairly generalize
> all my actions on a single mistake, the intentions were demonstrated by
> my acts, and I think they were good enough and I reconsidered my bad deed.

In this whole discussion you're coming across as stubborn, which 
contradicts your self-description as rational, skeptical and critical. 
Especially, it shows a lack of self-criticism.

As a side note, I'm /not/ refering to your post to Doc John - that 
doesn't come across as stubborn, but as hot-headed and lacking control 
over your emotions - again not signs of a rational, skeptical and 
critical mind.

> The reason we have common considerations to feelings through courtesy
> and manners is because it's moral, and it's the only reason, because we
> require to treated morally correct so we feel in a non-denigrating,
> safe-to-talk and mutual consideration environment, the core reason,
> being we don't want to be hated, perhaps loved a little but mostly given
> the opportunity of saying our peace with dignity, all those are
> emotional + intellectual reasons, but mainly emotional, reason? human
> dignity, the foundation of our morals and it's OK to demand them as
> natural Human Rights, hence my reconsideration of my emotional outburst.

Reconsideration? I haven't seen much sign of that in your posts lately. 
This posting in response to mine is the very first sign that such a 
process /may/ be happening - but even here I only see it used as an 
opening move to stubbornness.


> And that I'm not connected actually to the links I posted, that is were
> you're completely wrong, everything is connected to everything,

You're missing my point again.

This "everything is connected to everything" is a hollow phrase, easy to 
use but difficult to explain and grasp to a point that someone can 
really and legitimately say, "yes, it is so - been there, seen it at 
work often enough to know it's not just some hollow phrase".

> Science
> indicates so, in Nature there isn't an independent system existing on
> its own completely, since we're in this Universe, everything affects us
> somewhat someway. For example there is this popular PhD Physicist that I
> don't recall his name, but he's popular in YouTube too,  that says
> according to Quantum Physics an electron that receives a bit of energy
> that electron can't be in the same state of energy than another, so in
> theory at least immediately across the Universe all electrons will shift
> their energy states to be different, something more intuitive is a
> jungle: everything interacts with everything, is simply obvious, Carl
> Sagan also noticed in his series Cosmos: In order to survive, Earth must
> be seen as a single organism, and an organism in war with itself is
> doomed, or somethings similar, Climate Change another fact proving this,
> so we're connected more than you think we do and most people are as
> shortsighted as you are.

Read this paragraph of yours again - you're referring to "this popular 
PhD" and "Carl Sagan", rather than arguing from own experience. You've 
chosen to believe it because people you assign authority to say so.


> That's why I wrote on another post that people should first analyze my
> post and then take it on its merit, not on what they think it is, and I
> made it easy for anyone to do that by avoiding unnecessary commentary,
> so you as many here are making mostly arguments from ignorance, which is
> exactly what it's not supported by science of reasonable people. You
> should go beyond your instinct, instinct is some kind of warning, nor an
> educated opinion.

Sometimes however it is a good thing to express such an instinctive 
warning to others - expressly noting that it is an instinct and not 
fully examined yet - even before having "gone beyond" it.

In some cases - as in this - you'll only be able to clearly grasp what 
this gut feeling is all about based on additional evidence, which comes 
in after you've expresed the instinctive warning.


> I make sure that the ideas I spread are probably correct, I'd gladly
> accept a correction or discussion about it, as long as it's rational and
> not tending to be unnecessarily long.

Okay, let me get this straight:

(1) You "make sure" - how do you do that? Do you just verify that people 
you assign authority to say so, or do you actually follow their thoughts 
and toy with them /yourself/? (*)

(2) You make sure they are "probably correct"? So you can't say for 
sure, and instead have to rely on... what? A mathematical confidence 
level? Or a gut feeling? Whatever the case, why don't you, when posting 
those links, let us know how much confidence you do have in it?

(3) You'd gladly accept a discussion about, as long as it's not "tending 
to be unnecessarily long"? This /shouts/ at me "I don't really want to 
be bothered with details that might pose the risk of me having to change 
my mind, but I won't admit this so I throw in the word 'unnecessarily' 
to hide behind, in case someone jumps at this sentence".


> I've no idea on some messages, but probably true, or maybe true, anyway,
> everything indicates so, it could be a scam, but I don't have a way to
> verify directly, I don't live in USA, most messages are from there, but
> anyway the ideas are the important, eventually they'll be validate for
> its merits, so it's worth to follow somehow.

So... you have "no idea", but consider them "probably true, or maybe 
true", because "everything indicates so"?

I suspect that you deem it "probably true" because "nothing indicates 
otherwise" - in other words, because you have a bias to believe it.


> If I want something to be true or believe something to be true is
> irrelephant, truth will remain to be, regardless, so it's truth the
> goal, hence the analysis to at least have a look and check for its
> validity in your ration opinion or educated opinion if you happen to be
> an expert.

As I said, the messenger, too, is responsible for checking the content 
for legitimacy, not just the recipient.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> BTW, calling something obscure when it's not is an argument from 
> ignorance, something that scientist won't suppose to do, right?

I don't think you even understand what "argument from ignorance" means.

Did you pull a random fallacy name from your behind?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I can't believe the reaction of you people to my messages, I thought 
> you'd take them with rational, skeptical and critical thinking, but 
> you're taking them emotionally, "I'm uneasy", of course, that's the 
> point

It's arguably hard to take someone seriously who has in the past shown
belief in things like ghosts, deities, the supernatural, possibly in
aliens, and who has called skeptics "theists, Science being your God",
and who is now making several posts with nothing more than one link
each, and with provocative titles, giving a strong vibe of a conspiracy
theorist.

It doesn't help matters when you then start insulting people and using
swearwords, as well as using the "argumentative fallacy card" by throwing
names of completely random fallacies in situations where they don't fit
at all, seemingly to make yourself sound more intellectual and learned
(but ultimately achieving the exact opposite).

If you want to discuss about a certain topic, don't just make a post
with nothing but an URL. Explain your point, describe the topic, use
the URL as a reference, not as the main content. When writing, avoid
sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and avoid insulting people
simply because they disagree with you or dismiss you for behaving like
a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Also be aware of the environment you are in. If you go to a forum that's
about, let's say, knitting, and start throwing URL's to outlandish
political videos or websites that have absolutely nothing to do with
knitting, expect people to dismiss you. The context of the forum is
relevant.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

I'll guarantee that you didn't expect me to write again in this thread.
Just a couple of points:

On 24/09/14 10:12, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> And yes, I also /do/ take that with rational, skeptical and critical
>> thinking: There is a certain gut feeling
> 
> This is an oximoron that proves you wrong right there

An oxymoron is a language construct with the purpose of emphasis - e.g.
'deeply superficial' or 'sadly laughable'. It is nothing to do with the
correctness or otherwise of an argument.

> which begs the question

'To beg the question' is to use the assumption of correctness of an
argument in order to prove that argument. In other words, circular
reasoning.

> My only bad did was insulting Doctor John, so don't unfairly generalize
> all my actions on a single mistake, the intentions were demonstrated by
> my acts, and I think they were good enough and I reconsidered my bad deed.

... but failed to apologise to the person you insulted.

Now, just a little point that's worth remembering: many of us who post
on this newsfroup are possibly older than you (I am 64, TdeG is 67 etc
etc) and age implies experience which in turn implies wisdom. If you
don't want to listen to me then at least take advice from the others.

John

PS I quote a piece from a memo sent by one of my cow-orkers to someone
who was determined to get at me:
'I am but an egg and my knowledge of such matters is as far below yours
as mine is above my colleagues'. But, whatever you do, don't f*ck with
the Doctor.'
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 23:30, Doctor John wrote:
> I am but an egg

Stranger in a strange land.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/14 23:53, Stephen wrote:
> 
> Stranger in a strange land.
> 

Yay, Heinlein :-)

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message