Brad can you believe we still do chemistry after this?
Tommy Grand
Brad Anders
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pudding_model
Chemistry was done long before and long after the plum pudding model.
Brad Anders
Tommy Grand
Exactly. You don't abandon the pursuit of truth just because one
hypothesis is disproved. So lay off!
Brad Anders
At a minimum, you and I disagree on what's required for the "pursuit
of truth". I'll lay off when you do.
Brad Anders
Dicerous
The "pursuit of truth" is the pursuit of knowledge rather than
information. Very difficult in our modern age, but doable.
Dicerous
Look at our judicial system, or at least the lay-man's notion of it:
facts and experts. Just because the jury gets the facts doesn't mean
they'll connect the dots. Often, *judgment* is reserved for some big
mysterious, powerful person who is *the one who is presumed to know*.
It's one of the reasons modern psychiatry is both a farce but
efficacious: the psychiatrist is *the one who is presumed to know*.
Discuss.
Tashi
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance"
Albert Einstein.
You sure do a lot of condemnation around these here parts, what's up
with that Brad?
Brad Anders
You and Tommy are not interested in any kind of "investigation" unless
it supports what you've posted. When the two of you put forth your
various OT stuff, a number of us here usually cite a variety of
sources of contrary evidence. In virtually all of those cases, the two
of you either ignore what was posted, blow it off with a flip comment,
play "fetch-a-rock", or divert the discussion away and avoid debate.
Neither of you are interested in an honest, fair, debate on these
topics, which is the primary reason you post them to a classical
guitar newsgroup, where you won't have to stand the heat they'd
generate in appropriate venues.
Get a mirror if you want to see what the "height of igorance" looks
like.
Brad Anders
Tashi
> On Jan 7, 10:31 am, Tashi <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 6:42 am, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 6, 6:18 am, Tommy Grand <howardj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 5, 11:03 pm, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 5, 6:12 am, Tommy Grand <howardj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pudding_model
>
> > > > > Chemistry was done long before and long after the plum pudding model.
>
> > > > > Brad Anders
>
> > > > Exactly. You don't abandon the pursuit of truth just because one
> > > > hypothesis is disproved. So lay off!
>
> > > At a minimum, you and I disagree on what's required for the "pursuit
> > > of truth". I'll lay off when you do.
>
> > > Brad Anders
>
> > "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance"
> > Albert Einstein.
>
> > You sure do a lot of condemnation around these here parts, what's up
> > with that Brad
>
> You and Tommy are not interested in any kind of "investigation" unless
> it supports what you've posted.
Pure conjecture on your part Bradly!
>When the two of you put forth your
> various OT stuff, a number of us here usually cite a variety of
> sources of contrary evidence.
Yes, first truthful thing you have said, I concur.
>In virtually all of those cases, the two
> of you either ignore what was posted, blow it off with a flip comment,
No, that's what you do.
> play "fetch-a-rock", or divert the discussion away and avoid debate.
Like how you changes the subject of 33 conspiracies to 2,870
conspiracies, something like that?
> Neither of you are interested in an honest, fair, debate on these
> topics, which is the primary reason you post them to a classical
> guitar newsgroup, where you won't have to stand the heat they'd
> generate in appropriate venues.
Ha Ha! is that why you do it too?
> Get a mirror if you want to see what the "height of igorance" looks
> like.
Oh now Bradly, that cut ran deep! I'm hurting..........
Brad Anders
> On Jan 7, 1:36 pm, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In virtually all of those cases, the two
> > of you either ignore what was posted, blow it off with a flip comment,
>
> No, that's what you do.
In other words, "That's what you are, but what am I?"
Most of us got over this kind of response as an "answer" when we were
10 year-old boys. Instead of citing cases where you have actually
engaged in a reasonable give-and-take discussion (perhaps because you
haven't), you respond with a flip comment. It's what you do.
> > play "fetch-a-rock", or divert the discussion away and avoid debate.
>
> Like how you changes the subject of 33 conspiracies to 2,870
> conspiracies, something like that?
Go back and look at that discussion. I responded that for the most
part, I had no problem with the 33 examples posted. Since the idea
behind the original posting was that the sheer number of 33
conspiracies that proved to be true was evidence that conspiracy
theories often have validity, I asked you to comment on the fact that
far more of them (such as the ones at Snopes) were proven to be BS. As
I predicted, you completely ignored this challenge, and diverted the
discussion. <It's what you do>, because you're not really interested
in a discussion. You just like your little soapbox and megaphone.
> > Neither of you are interested in an honest, fair, debate on these
> > topics, which is the primary reason you post them to a classical
> > guitar newsgroup, where you won't have to stand the heat they'd
> > generate in appropriate venues.
>
> Ha Ha! is that why you do it too?
You and Tommy are far and away the primary starters of OT topics in
this newsgroup. You know this. Eveyone knows this. But can you admit
it? Can you counter as to why you do it in this n.g. instead of ones
more topical? Of course not, because to do so, you'd have to address
my comment. Why do that when you can put up a flip comment instead?
<It's what you do>.
Brad "Deconstructing Tashi" Anders
Tashi
Brad I didn't read your post, sorry but it's too long for me to waste
time on, plus nobody likes to read paragraphs about some fucked up guy
telling them how fucked up they are. That's just fucked up. So fuck
off OK.
Brad Anders
Brad "Fucked Up Guy" Anders
Dick Cheney
> I must have really hurt you, bro.
>
> Brad "Fucked Up Guy" Anders
Kooks
First and foremost, kooks believe really weird stuff. But simply
holding weird beliefs isn't enough to make someone a kook. It's the
tactics they use to spread their beliefs that separates kooks from the
merely eccentric. Below is a list of common kook distinguishing
characteristics. The average Usenet kook will possess at least several
of these traits. Über Kooks will possess most or all of them.
Kooks make lists of their enemies. Anyone who maintains a list of
enemies is almost certainly a kook. Anyone who appears on one or more
kook enemy lists probably isn't a kook.
Kooks are control freaks. Kooks try to moderate the NG and try to
force people to only talk about certain subjects and/or conduct
themselves only in what the kooky wannabe moderator sees as the
correct manner. Kooks will even complain to the ISPs of other NG
posters whose views they don't agree with in an attempt to have them
removed from Usenet.
Kooks are paranoid. Most kooks are big believers in conspiracies large
and small. They seem to think everyone is out to harm them or at least
silence them (because they alone know the truth, (see d). From the
mighty New World Order, to various three letter agencies of the
Federal Government to anyone on the NG who disagrees with them, kooks
see enemies everywhere and make lists of them (see a).
Kooks are always right. They have had the absolute "TRUTH" bestowed
upon them by god or the aliens or by the voices in their heads or
whatever. They are utterly convinced that they, and only they, know
the "TRUTH." No matter how many times their beliefs are proven wrong,
they continue to cling to them like grim death and will never, EVER
admit to being wrong about ANYTHING.
KOOKS LIKE TO SHOUT IN ALL CAPS. THEY SEE THEIR MESSAGES AS BEING SO
IMPORTANT THAT THEY NEED TO SHOUT THEM OUT. THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE
*EVERYONE* NOTICES WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.
Kooks are obsessed. They are obsessed with certain subjects and
certain other users of the NG, even to the point of stalking them. But
above all, they are obsessed with spreading their message and keeping
it in discussion at all times on their favorite NGs. Kooks rarely let
anyone else get in the last word in any discussion that touches even
remotely on one of their obsessions.
Kooks will create sock puppets and use them to attack their enemies
and/or post positive responses to the kook's own posts (since no one
else will).
Kooks are incapable of intellectual debate. Kooks believe they are in
possession of the absolute TRUTH on a given subject or subjects and
they are here to share that truth, not debate it. Since kooks are
always right and will never ever admit to being wrong (see d), they
refuse to debate their beliefs and tolerate no skepticism toward them.
To a kook, anyone who disagrees with them MUST be either ignorant,
insane or a paid disinformation agent out to discredit them (see c).
Kooks don't have a sense of humor, especially in regards to the
subjects they are obsessed with. They are always deadly serious about
their pet issues and often berate other NG users for not taking them
seriously enough. Kooks are perpetual straight men. Their lack of
humor is ironically one of the kook's most amusing characteristics.
Kooks lie. Kooks lie about their backgrounds, their qualifications,
their achievements, their level of education, their experiences, etc.,
etc. Kooks see their message as being so important that they are
willing to do whatever it takes (especially lying) to get that message
out and make it look like it came from a credible source, rather than
from a mere kooky nobody who can be safely ignored. Kooks however
aren't generally smart enough to lie well or be consistent in their
lying, so they are easily caught and their lies are often exposed.
However, even when presented with absolute proof of lying, a true kook
will never admit to it (see 4) and usually either ignore the evidence
or claim it was manufactured by some "conspiracy" that is out to
discredit them (see c).
Kooks tend to be hypocrites. For example, they will rage against
others for posting off topic material but still do it themselves
regularly, and they take great offense when someone else points out
that they are off topic. When this is pointed out, they will go to
great lengths to try to justify *their* off topic posts as being so
important that topical considerations are irrelevant. Another example
of kook hypocrisy is name calling. A kook will rage against others for
name calling but be completely oblivious to their own continual name
calling and ad hominem attacks on others. Kooks tend to live by the
motto of "Do as I say, not as I do."
Kooks don't play well with others. Since kooks are paranoid, always
think they are right on every issue, tolerate no skepticism or
differing views and always want to be the one in control, kooks just
don't get along with other people, not even other kooks. Every kook is
an island unto itself of strange beliefs and weird psychoses. Kooks
are very lonely people, and it shows.
Tashi
> I must have really hurt you, bro.
You keep saying that........ why?
Richard Yates
> On Jan 7, 11:37 pm, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I must have really hurt you, bro.
>>
>> Brad "Fucked Up Guy" Anders
>
>
> Kooks
>
> First and foremost, kooks believe really weird stuff. But simply
> holding weird beliefs isn't enough to make someone a kook. It's the
> tactics they use to spread their beliefs that separates kooks from the
> merely eccentric. Below is a list of common kook distinguishing
> characteristics. The average Usenet kook will possess at least several
Good definition, Dick. Based on this and DRA's definition of troll, I
reached a firm conclusion about the following posters: Tashi is not a
troll; Tommy is not a kook. I fully support and defend to the death their
denials of these respective labels.
Alain Reiher
"Dick Cheney" <woll...@live.com> wrote in message
news:b808b05b-f7c1-46b1...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 7, 11:37 pm, Brad Anders <pband...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I must have really hurt you, bro.
>
> Brad "Fucked Up Guy" Anders
Kooks
First and foremost, kooks believe really weird stuff. But simply
holding weird beliefs isn't enough to make someone a kook. It's the
tactics they use to spread their beliefs that separates kooks from the
merely eccentric. Below is a list of common kook distinguishing
characteristics. The average Usenet kook will possess at least several
of these traits. �ber Kooks will possess most or all of them.
========================
Is this normal?
Alain