|
Post by thetart on Aug 13, 2010 4:05:37 GMT -4
Now we have a problem. If Evan refuses to accept Jacks terms, Jack will espouse that the ABs refused to engage him in debate.
A mod over there should step in.
I like the condition that Jack leaves it to Felzer to defend Jacks position though! Cute.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 13, 2010 4:31:49 GMT -4
No he won't engage in a debate: he just wants to post his thoughts - as always - and not have to account for them.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Aug 13, 2010 5:53:46 GMT -4
No he won't engage in a debate: he just wants to post his thoughts - as always - and not have to account for them. I would do it anyway. Have them all in the same place......next to the post that destroys them. Good point of reference for the future....then have a parralel thread destroying the comeback.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 13, 2010 6:41:35 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 13, 2010 9:26:25 GMT -4
JW: Run away! Run away!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 13, 2010 12:33:35 GMT -4
Absolutely hilarious. I love how it completely absolves White of any personal responsibility to defend his claims. That's like a doctoral candidate trying to tell people at his dissertation defense that the dissertation is his final word on the subject so someone else will have to answer the questions. I wonder why the esteemed Professor Fetzer consents to such a wanton exercise in intellectual irresponsibility.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 13, 2010 16:09:14 GMT -4
Seems like Mr. White wants a no lose debate, if the guy given the luckless task of defending his position goes down in flames White can just say he misunderstood the original point.
Also the personal attacks rule seems like a get out clause, I mean yes if you start questioning his parentage that's out of order but if he demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge or understanding on a subject what else could you call him but ignorant?
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Aug 13, 2010 17:23:12 GMT -4
Show - don't tell.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Aug 13, 2010 23:26:35 GMT -4
I am in agreement with this statement.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 13, 2010 23:59:49 GMT -4
How can he even use the term "debate" with a straight face, in light if the process he describes? What an utterly useless format he seeks.... But it's typical, refusing to respond in any meaningful manner to rebuttals.
I don't understand how anyone can see any credibility in him at all.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 14, 2010 1:22:39 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Aug 14, 2010 2:47:21 GMT -4
This is pretty ridiculous.
"I created the cure for cancer! You just need to eat needles at 4pm every day for a month and then you will be immune to any and every kind of cancer!" "But... won't this needle eating kill you? How would this work?" "Well, ask my colleague." "..."
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Aug 14, 2010 12:49:10 GMT -4
Did Jack ever present anything that deserves the title "Study"?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 14, 2010 16:24:44 GMT -4
It really does not get any more evasive than that. A dissertation may be all that a student wishes to say on the subject, but that doesn't place it above reasonable comment and criticism. That's why a defense is held and the student is made to answer relevant questions as a condition of receiving his degree. A prosecutor's case at law may be the complete picture of the evidence he wants to present. That doesn't mean it's true, correct, or all the pertinent evidence that exists. That's why a trial is held to test the evidence and weigh conflicting claims. White is the one proposing that Fetzer comment on the rebuttals. If the "study" is as complete and correct as he maintains, then there shouldn't be a need for any further comment from anyone. If further commentary is warranted at all, then White (as the author of the "study") is the only person appropriate for the hot seat. White's proposal is self-contradictory -- as it was probably meant to be. It's meant to be rejected, to give the impression that the debunkers backed down from a debate, as thetart has already suggested.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Aug 14, 2010 16:50:09 GMT -4
White keeps asserting that his studies "speak for themselves". Somebody over there needs to tell him, "no, they don't". They have gaping holes in them, some of them have been dropped from Aulis, of all places (IIRC), and they fall far short of demanding any iota of deference.
They are his studies, if they are worthwhile, he needs to stand by them.
If not, I would dismiss them out of hand.
|
|