|
Post by ouloncollouphid on Aug 31, 2005 18:04:18 GMT -4
Margo won't reply, at least not with anything sensible. (But he'll probably reply to this to moan about me getting his name wrong, questioning my 'tactics' etc yawn, yawn...) He's a troll, pretty clearly, who WANTS to believe all the horse-dung he's swallowed.
I don't know if anyone here is familiar with Dan Dennett (I've only read a coupleof his articles myself) but he has a nice line:
"Nobody is immune to wishful thinking. It takes scientific discipline to protect ourselves from our own credulity."
|
|
|
Post by ouloncollouphid on Sept 7, 2005 18:42:22 GMT -4
Ah yes, the famous "half-time football score" Did you know that, when street corner bookmakers took bets on the seemingly random last four numbers of the Dow Jones index, that the Mafia arranged, on the 4th of July, that this number would end in "1776"? So if a handful of dodgy Italians could do that, what limits could there be to the US Government's powers of flim-flammery? God almighty, aren't you embarrassed at being such a gullible, credulous turnip? Have some shame, man.
|
|
|
Post by ouloncollouphid on Aug 31, 2005 19:17:27 GMT -4
I think this goes to the root of the problem. You do not understand the difference between objectively verifiable evidence and simple belief so you paint a false dichotomy. I’ll make a more appropriate dichotomy based on what is occurring in this forum. An expert scientist or engineer with experience in a relevant area of knowledge would demonstrate that he had examined the evidence surrounding an event, applied that evidence to the possible theories to explain an event, come to a most likely explanation, made this work available for criticism from recognized experts and appropriately revised the work according to this criticism. This is compared to the approach you are using “I believe it to be this way and one opinion is as valid as another.” Margamatix, don’t you see the difference in these two approaches? Can’t you see why Jay, Bob and others command respect in this forum? Are you going to continue insisting that there is no such thing as expert opinion? With all due respect, I disagree with you. There is no proof whatsoever that the moon landings happened. Belief in Apollo is a faith, nothing more and nothing less. Pathetic. So, in other words: No, you don't understand the difference between the two approaches outlined. Fingers in the ears again. Dear oh dear.
|
|
|
Post by ouloncollouphid on Aug 10, 2005 14:39:00 GMT -4
You seem to have edited something out of my quote- why is that? I don't seem to have editied something out of your quote, I have edited something out of your quote and included the ellipsis marks to indicate that I have. It's a perfectly legitimate practice that writers do all the time to exclude extraneous matter. I did it because the words "the lunar rover, which is 10 feet long," were irrelevant to the following discussion. It is bad form to shorten a quote without including the proper punctuation marks. They alert readers to the fact that there is a deliberate omission in case they may wish to check what the full quote says. Now that I've had the courtesy to answer your question, please do what you usually don't and answer mine. I'm sure that Margamatix wasn't, in any way, trying to imply that you were somehow being devious while at the same time avoiding answering your question. That would be very cheap and I confidently anticipate full responses to evryone's queries on all his threads.
|
|
|
Post by ouloncollouphid on Aug 7, 2005 11:00:14 GMT -4
I see from another thread (VLT) and from other information I have read, that such a thing is already under development so somebody must consider it a realistically practical proposition. "The ESO Very Large Telescope will consist of four 8-meter telescopes which can work independently or in combined mode. In this latter mode the VLT provides the total light collecting power of a 16 meter single telescope, making it the largest optical telescope in the world." Not quite the same, is it?
|
|
|
Post by ouloncollouphid on Aug 7, 2005 10:43:10 GMT -4
Well, I'm pleased to meet you too.
By the way, do you still think it's easy to build an 108 metre reflector telescope? And get funding for it?
|
|
|
Post by ouloncollouphid on Aug 7, 2005 10:18:20 GMT -4
Dear oh dear. I'd love to stick up for my fellow-countryman but his pig-headed refusal to look facts in the face make it impossible, I'm afraid.
I don't really have anything intelligent to add to the debate really (Sorry!) , as the regulars have done an exemplary job of demolishing Margamatix's shaky case already.
But hats off to him for sticking around, although he does seem determined to be offended and insulted - (and gets even twitchier when everyone refuses to call him 'delusional' or a loony.)
Despite his flaws, he's the nearest think I've seen on the web to a rational person supporting the Hoax Conspiracy Fantasies. Even if he does come out with IDW-isms occasionally, eg "It didn't happen, and time will prove me right."
While I'm here, thanks to Jay and Bob and the other regulars for their insights and superb rhetorical and analytical skills in exposing the weaknesses of the various hoax beliefs. I first discovered this site after a drunken conversation (inspired by REM's 'Man on the Moon'). I found I couldn't counter the nonsense about photographs and radiation and found myself with doubts about it all.
Thankfully, Clavius and Bad Astronomy et al have put my mind at ease over the whole issue and now I'm fully armed in the event of a repeat discussion!
Right, I'm finished. Blimey, for someone with nothing to say, I do go on, don't I?
|
|