Re: I believe \"Reactor\" is aptly named...
I tend to match the rhetoric of the people with whom I converse. And there is always a reason for how I choose to respond. You or others may not be aware of that reason, but I do not respond without thinking about what I am doing/saying. IOW, there is always a plan behind my apparant madness or aholery.
I do very much see there is a plan on your part. I have looked at your post with myself and others and noticed some canned responses from you which means your not giving anything or everything of yourself to the conversation. At least not in those responses. I would not call that true scientific debating. It is one of the reasons I will explain to you later why I question you. I sometimes think of things to say that leave open questions to be answered later but I save those questions for later so I can plan better but I am not as good at it as you seem to be. But question that might be asked is that a trap? I think maybe not if the intentions are good. Sometimes I do not see your intentions as being good which is another reason I question you. As you know baiting is a common tactic of a troll and I am not calling you or myself that I am just pointing that out that baiting someone is not always looked upon as a good tactic. As you and I admit we both do it. But we call that planing.
What bothers me is what you say at the end of your post you reserve the right to the freedom of speech and to be a ahol. That raised a eyebrow with me and caused me to ask myself a lot of questions regarding your intentions concerning scientific debate and debunking here. And it caused me to question why you are here and how is this forum here at TTI gaining anything from your logic and tactics. Is this really doing any good or is it hurting this forum? Which is the main reason I am here talking to you now. I think this scientific debating and debunking needs better rules than the freedom of speech and reserving the right to be a ahol. It does not always work for others here. More so with the ones that you are talking to. I think the rules of the game need to be leveled to a fair playing field for the people you are talking to because they don,t have your tactics, logic, and reasoning and they don,t understand scientific debate or debunking. So I feel that sometimes people here are being konked on the head unfairly. Even the members that have been here a while because they still have not caught on to you until they themselves are in the thick with you. My question, in the end after everything is said and done what did TTI gain from your confrontation with that member? What did the member gain from it? Did TTI lose that member? Will the member be damaged emotionally in some way from the confrontation? Was it really worth your time, logic, and tactics? Your pursuit to the best of my knowledge is to help others learn? Is this always the best way to help people learn?
The thing is, I let you know. I told you I was going to get uncivil with you. Yes, you were taunting and I do not take that personally. But you were also being hypocritical with your whole "emotional excuse". Look, we all get emotional sometimes. But using that as a cop-out to not respond to people's honest questions is....well, a cop out. So the reason behind why I changed my tone (then and at other times since then) was to begin to mirror your own emotional responses. Can you understand that? It is disingenuous for you to brand something as "emotional" just because you don't want to answer a point, or don't know how to answer it.
Well me getting emotional as a cop out was not planned or intentional on my part. I refined my theory and even tried to put it to math for you but what I did was not good enough for you which caused me to ask do you really understand how far ahead of me you really are? I sometimes think you don,t understand. I don,t have the capability that you have and I think you might be asking too much of my skills. But, I think if I am willing to sit down and take the time to learn that I might could catch up but right now putting something together at this time to prove my claim mathematically I an not sure I can do that. All I can do is drag out my code and run it for you. But as you and Darby pointed out without the math to back up the theory my claim is pretty much dead in the water. I really don,t believed this called for you mirroring my response. I really don,t believe that was the right thing to do.
First off: apples and oranges. I have a GREAT deal more respect for you than I do for Pamela. Her "modus operandi" is always to lead-on hoaxers... ask them leading questions, all softball, and never any hardball questions. On more than one occasion I have seen you request evidence of a claimant and point out where the "evidence" they claim to present is shoddy or counter to the goals of true evidence. This is but one thing I appreciate about you. The other is you willingness to work experimentally with your programming (much the same way I respect Einstein's willingness to work in his lab). But just because I respect you in those areas does not mean I will not press you on others.
We are good here. I am still working on my program much as Einstein is in his lab. I don,t mind being pressed I would just like to see it coming first and not be knocked off my feet with my eyeballs spinning in my head looking like a cash register being rung up then trying to figure out later on what hit me. People are complicated and don,t always take things very well and can even take things the wrong way. You and I had a debating tactic disagreement with what you said that I was putting words in your mouth. Also, at that point I was asking myself questions about your behavior here before hand in this forum. Our confrontation between us caused me to ask myself a bunch more questions about what I believed your intentions were here in this forum and how much good that was doing the forum here.
This is wonderful, and I commend you for all the schooling you HAVE completed. You DO have some great foundations in science. And much how I feel about ruthless, I am trying to open your eyes to some of the areas of science and math that I can tell you have not been exposed to...or perpahs had cursory lessons in, but because you never applied it perhaps you have "lost" some of it. But this (your education) is not why I supposed your fits with me might be borne out of jealousy. It is your actual WORK in "time travel" that tells me you wanted to go farther, and perhaps be "in the thick" of advances and development in science.
You have to admit, wanting to "create a computer program that time travels" is not like building up your own PC or integrating home automation electronics, or other common applications of tech. You are going "big". And again, that is good. I applaud you for it. So sometimes I sense resentment when I continue to harp on you about something very scientific. Something you are ignoring, or some aspect of science that you cite as "proving your method works" but not wishing to dig deep into the reference you cite, to see if it REALLY is supporting your work, or if your citation of it is cursory, at best. And again...when you ratchet-up the rhetoric, I am only too happy to match you.
On digging deeper into my work I'm not sure how much more you can go. I have tried to explain how my code works as best I can. Most don,t seem very interested in it. As for pressing me for something to back it up when I came here I thought it was only my invention but as Darby later informed me the theory has come up before and I was just borrowing it. On the proving it part where how and why. Simply running the program does not prove much because there is nothing to back the theory up or I don,t have a way to mathematically back the theory up as of yet. On the ignoring part I usually spend my time programing or researching how to make my program better. I,m not trying to ignore I just don,t know where to go for right now.
If I seem to be having fits then I need to look at that and see if that is how I am coming across. If it is then I need to work on that. I would not call it jealousy. Maybe I am trying too hard but no I don,t think that is jealousy. You are a presence here at TTI. You are in the forums talking to people and mixing it up with people. My fits or fit as it where was with whether or not this mixing it up with others as you do and the way you do it is the best thing for this forum. And that should not be my decision along or one for myself to make only. As I said in my first post here we can run an appropriate poll and let the people here have their say about that and lets see if it is just me reacting as you claimed at the beginning of this thread or if there is a perceived problem with the way the scientific debunking is being done around here. If there is then a open discussion on that maybe and or a poll.
Let me assure you that, just as I KNOW you are misinterpreting me, you are also misinterpreting this about Darby. Now granted, I KNOW I am "more of a handful" to deal with than Darby. That is because of the techniques I use to communicate, and cajole when it comes to pressing people on the science of their claims or what they are doing. But Darby can and will be your "best friend" and he can offer scientific advice (and yes, correction, as he also has a history of teaching) that is not in my zone of knowledge
Darby is good at correcting. I sometimes don,t like what he says but for me that is where it usually ends. He only has to speak once and if I say anything it does not go very far. He can be helpful I agree with you.
That's fine. I understand, and I don't claim to be "perfect" either. Ruthless and I were talking about the "mirroring tactic" via PM the other day, and I admitted to him that sometimes when I apply it I do not STRICTLY mirror the other person's rhetoric, but sometimes I "kick it up a notch". That is a failing in me of how I apply this tactic (and yes, I fully admit it IS a tactic... there are many such tactics teachers develop for how to "reach" other people in spirited discussions).
Well for one that has being the subject of the mirroring tactic I will say I don't appreciate it or like it much. You could of punched me in the middle of my face and it would of being just as effective as your mirroring tactic.
That is fine by me. You will note I have NEVER, EVER squelched your freedom of expression here. Sure, I may have taken offense at some things you said, and fired back an "in kind" salvo. But I have never banned you, threaten to ban you, change any of your posts, or anything like that. You are (pretty much) free to say anything you like about me, or put up polls. I don't care. I am well aware there are "certain" people here who would respond to those polls with negative replies about me. But I also know there are others who would respond positively, because they understand why I am here, and how I "operate". I tend to be a no BS kind of guy. People who are like this tend to gravitate towards one another.
Well RMT my point in meeting you here was to do it nicely and fairly with out arguing or fighting with you. To talk with you nicely and in a civil manner. Any polls put up should be agreed to first and not done with bad intentions to hurt you or myself. Maybe a pole questing whether or not we can do a better job here with debunking. Something to sum up if there is a better way to do this. As you said you have a no B.S. policy but sometimes ones persons B.S. might be of interest to another person and I believe that is where the conflict here starts.
I was thinking about saying something more about a correct way to debate science but I said a good deal already. My point was that First A actual debate is agreed on first by both parties and not assume by one party. Second there are equal rules and both parties know them before hand and those rules apply to both parties fairly and evenly. Third when either one of the parties fails to take the others reasons and fails to fine fault with those reasons then that person lost the debate. The other way is to recreate that persons work and publish the results.
When communicating with someone the communication passes to the other person. Using canned responses, tactics, behavior mirroring, uncivile behavior, behavior labeling, and name calling closes down communication because it causes the other persons words to be bounced off into outter space never to be heard from again instead of the other person receiving those words, processing those words, and returning the processed opinon to the other person. Nothing is gained from the communication. Nothing new is learned. No knowledge is gained. So, I don,t agree to RMT's tactics even though they may work very well for him. His tactics is what I wanted to have a pole about and see if it might be possible to do it better.
