|
|
Post by damnsod on Dec 16, 2011 17:29:50 GMT -4
In this case i dont think being polite came into it, belittleing a little yes but not polite. Not everyone is a smart interlectual, me less than most. However i feel that sometimes some people look down their noses at others and i dont think this is helpful in changing peoples minds. When and where i went to school some of the teachers acted in ways that were similar and i for one did not find that aided or helped my learning. Just my thoughts.  Well, if you claim that you can correct professionals about rocket science and astrophysics, you'd better be a smart intellectual. Just as if you want to tell the lead singer at La Scala she's off key, you'd better not be tone-deaf. Or if you want to tell your doctor he's a quack, you'd best be able to spell "aspirin". We're talking about topics that require very deep knowledge, and extreme precision here. Not being able to spell technical terms (as opposed to the occasional online typo) indicates that you haven't enough familiarity with such terms to be trusted to know what they mean.
Or Is It Just Run By A Bunch Of Hobbyists...
Can You Point Me In The Direction Of The Peer Review Please...!!!
(There I Dropped The Cyan, And If I Have Got Time, I Will Edit It Out Of My Previous Posts...)I Take It You Are Unfamiliar With Most Doctors Handwriting...  |
|
|
|
Post by jd on Dec 16, 2011 17:31:26 GMT -4
Let me count the ways: 1. "I'm just speaking for a friend." Sure, it seems to be true in this case. Other people have had no problem in the past simply going "Hey, there's a live one over at David Ickes today." It is pointless work; unless the person making the claims is actually watching the debate, they won't learn anything. The people the person has been making the claims TO won't learn anything in any case, because THEY aren't here. So who benefits? The sole benefit I can see is if the claim was so powerful it really needed to be heard; that it had the potential to overturn our current understanding. i certainly don't see that as the case here. 2. Bad formatting. Okay, again, not jd's fault. But since the original claimant is not here, and his work is being synopsized in any case, why not do a better job of it? 3. Bad timing. There's been a small run on really, really annoying Apollo Deniers recently. Oddly, however, they have mostly been somewhat educated, and willing and able to at least try to state their claims in detail. This "shy one" is a blast from the past -- bad arguments arising from poor understanding presented in annoying fashion. There is no meat there -- which Doctor Socks and other recent participants at least offer. He sure is no friend of mine. Its a simple case of me saying to someone why not post your stuff over here and as the person didnt want to i asked if it would be ok if i did. I had this idea that some people here were better equipted to show where he was going wrong than i was. As it turns out ive benn made to look like the devil for nothing. I had not bothered now. |
|
|
|
Post by jd on Dec 16, 2011 17:35:05 GMT -4
To be honnest im quite upset at the way ive been accused and treated over this and i dont think the way Cheeb has been spoken to by some has done the pro Apollo team any good at all.
I see this forum in a different light at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 16, 2011 17:38:05 GMT -4
Let me count the ways: 1. "I'm just speaking for a friend." Sure, it seems to be true in this case. Other people have had no problem in the past simply going "Hey, there's a live one over at David Ickes today." It is pointless work; unless the person making the claims is actually watching the debate, they won't learn anything. The people the person has been making the claims TO won't learn anything in any case, because THEY aren't here. So who benefits? The sole benefit I can see is if the claim was so powerful it really needed to be heard; that it had the potential to overturn our current understanding. i certainly don't see that as the case here. 2. Bad formatting. Okay, again, not jd's fault. But since the original claimant is not here, and his work is being synopsized in any case, why not do a better job of it? 3. Bad timing. There's been a small run on really, really annoying Apollo Deniers recently. Oddly, however, they have mostly been somewhat educated, and willing and able to at least try to state their claims in detail. This "shy one" is a blast from the past -- bad arguments arising from poor understanding presented in annoying fashion. There is no meat there -- which Doctor Socks and other recent participants at least offer. He sure is no friend of mine. Its a simple case of me saying to someone why not post your stuff over here and as the person didnt want to i asked if it would be ok if i did. I had this idea that some people here were better equipted to show where he was going wrong than i was. As it turns out ive benn made to look like the devil for nothing. I had not bothered now. Sorry about that. Mister Rainbow showing up in the middle of all that didn't help -- for a bit there the whole forum was turning into large grotty images surrounded by giant purple text. You can imagine some people got annoyed! Call it a worthy experiment. And the result? The format isn't set up for argument by proxy. Even pointing and laughing is better done in the Chosen Few, not on the main floor. |
|
|
|
Post by damnsod on Dec 16, 2011 17:47:26 GMT -4
To be honnest im quite upset at the way ive been accused and treated over this and i dont think the way Cheeb has been spoken to by some has done the pro Apollo team any good at all. I see this forum in a different light at the moment.
To Be Fair, All I Have Done Is Ask Questions...
If I Have Gotten Answers That Point Out Where I Was Wrong...
I Hold My Hands Up And Say Fair Enough...
What About This Then...
And Then Don't Go Back To It...
For Example C-Rocks, Kapton Tape, Using Lead To Screen Radiation, And On Here My Error In The Time Delay Not Applying To Nixons Answers...
Sometimes Nobody Expects The Spelling Nazis...!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by jd on Dec 16, 2011 17:53:21 GMT -4
To be honnest im quite upset at the way ive been accused and treated over this and i dont think the way Cheeb has been spoken to by some has done the pro Apollo team any good at all. I see this forum in a different light at the moment.
To Be Fair, All I Have Done Is Ask Questions...
If I Have Gotten Answers That Point Out Where I Was Wrong...
I Hold My Hands Up And Say Fair Enough...
What About This Then...
And Then Don't Go Back To It...
For Example C-Rocks, Kapton Tape, Using Lead To Screen Radiation, And On Here My Error In The Time Delay Not Applying To Nixons Answers...
Sometimes Nobody Expects The Spelling Nazis...!!! I am quite ashamed at the way you have been treated so far Cheeb even though we dont get on. I dont see this thread as a positive for the pro Apollo team in many ways. Im also quite upset at being accused of this and that and so forth. It seems there are paranoid people on both sides. Truly i am ashamed at the moment of how i have bigged this forum up to HB's. However i have seen this on here before. |
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 16, 2011 18:00:25 GMT -4
Well, if you claim that you can correct professionals about rocket science and astrophysics, you'd better be a smart intellectual. Just as if you want to tell the lead singer at La Scala she's off key, you'd better not be tone-deaf. Or if you want to tell your doctor he's a quack, you'd best be able to spell "aspirin". We're talking about topics that require very deep knowledge, and extreme precision here. Not being able to spell technical terms (as opposed to the occasional online typo) indicates that you haven't enough familiarity with such terms to be trusted to know what they mean.
Or Is It Just Run By A Bunch Of Hobbyists...
Can You Point Me In The Direction Of The Peer Review Please...!!!
(There I Dropped The Cyan, And If I Have Got Time, I Will Edit It Out Of My Previous Posts...)I Take It You Are Unfamiliar With Most Doctors Handwriting... OK - First of all, this is not an official NASA site. Why do you think it would be anything other than a hobby forum? There are some very knowledgable people on here, but they do not speak for NASA. If you want something official, go to nasa.gov. "Point you in the direction of peer review"? Well, first of all, you don't start posting on random internet forums. You need to write up your findings as an article. Then you need to submit it to the appropriate scientific journal, who will send it out to respected people in the field for review. I presume, from your vast knowledge of Apollo, you can find the most appropriate journal to submit your work to. And yes, I am familiar with doctors' handwriting. I am also aware that a simple misspelling by one letter can be fatal, so their writing must be accurate, even if it's messy. Do you know the different effects of your consuming sodium nitr ate and sodium nitr ite? |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 16, 2011 18:05:47 GMT -4
BF;DR Try this analogy; shiny boots. Shiny boots don't make a better soldier, but they are a good indicator. The obverse is even more true; if a soldier either won't follow orders or can't execute them well enough to shine his own boots, then you really, really don't want to trust him with a loaded rifle. Careful use of language arises from careful thought. If you can't formulate a complete sentence, you probably haven't had a complete thought. If you can't take the time to find the spelling of a technical term, you probably haven't taken the time to learn anything about that that technical term describes and entails. Extraneous formatting and superfluous emoticons are a similar sign. If you have to hide the actual thoughts (as expressed by the words) with fancy formats and inline images, you are exactly like the soldier at guard duty inspection who oh-so-carefully stands behind the other men to hide the fact that not only are his boots not shined, but he managed to fall out wearing unlaced sneakers. |
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Dec 16, 2011 18:10:33 GMT -4
To be honnest im quite upset at the way ive been accused and treated over this and i dont think the way Cheeb has been spoken to by some has done the pro Apollo team any good at all. I see this forum in a different light at the moment.
To Be Fair, All I Have Done Is Ask Questions...
If I Have Gotten Answers That Point Out Where I Was Wrong...
I Hold My Hands Up And Say Fair Enough...
What About This Then...
And Then Don't Go Back To It...
For Example C-Rocks, Kapton Tape, Using Lead To Screen Radiation, And On Here My Error In The Time Delay Not Applying To Nixons Answers...
Sometimes Nobody Expects The Spelling Nazis...!!! I believe I asked you a question. |
|
|
|
Post by damnsod on Dec 16, 2011 18:13:25 GMT -4
I am quite ashamed at the way you have been treated so far Cheeb even though we dont get on. I dont see this thread as a positive for the pro Apollo team in many ways. Im also quite upset at being accused of this and that and so forth. It seems their are paranoid people on both sides. Truly i am ashamed at the moment of how i have bigged this forum up to HB's. However i have seen this on here before.
Seige Mentality, And Top Dogs Wading In...
The Worst One So Far Is The Grammar Nazi...
The American Chap Who Cannot Even Speak English Proper Without Sounding Like A Teenage Girl At A Justin Beiber Concert...
Their Science Is Seriousley Flawed Anyway,
Stuck In 1969 Like Hotel California...
I Noticed No One Picked Up On My Newtonian Equations For Calculating The Time It Would Take For A Radio Signal To Reach The Moon...
It's As If Higgs Bosun Has Never Been Discovered...!!!
But I Get The Mindset Of These Americans...
They Get Stuck On This Pioneering Thing,
And Like The Flag Blowing In The Gentle Breeze On The Moon...
I Find Them To Act Like Shaved Monkeys, Waving Their Little Dicks Around...
Whether They Went To The Moon Or Not 40 Odd Years Ago,
Has Now Become Academic...
Some Of The People On Here Should Be Treated As A Post Milgram Experiment...
Into Degenerate Behavour... |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Dec 16, 2011 18:14:36 GMT -4
Do you plan to use this kind of language when you submit your work to NASA scientists for peer review, Damnsod?
|
|
|
|
Post by damnsod on Dec 16, 2011 18:22:33 GMT -4
And yes, I am familiar with doctors' handwriting. I am also aware that a simple misspelling by one letter can be fatal, so their writing must be accurate, even if it's messy. Do you know the different effects of your consuming sodium nitr ate and sodium nitr ite?
And If He Prescribed Sodium Nitrite Chances Are The Cyanide Has Killed You First...!!!
His Best Bet Would Be To Tell You To Keep Eating Your Greens...!!! |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 16, 2011 18:25:26 GMT -4
I Noticed No One Picked Up On My Newtonian Equations For Calculating The Time It Would Take For A Radio Signal To Reach The Moon... Show you can achieve the same rigor with the important part of the calculation; how you arrived at the signal delay. How have you controlled for possible edits in the secondary source you are using? How have you controlled for the well-known effects of overlapping conversation and conversational pauses? Have you accounted for changes in the signal path over the length of the transmission? Have you included human reaction time? These are among the questions you have to show you have made an attempt to answer, or demonstrated they are statistically unimportant, before your single calculation is meaningful. And Like The Flag Blowing In The Gentle Breeze On The Moon... It doesn't. It also couldn't; the fine dust fully visible in the record would be stirred by any wind capable of lifting even a light silk flag. Some Of The People On Here Should Be Treated As A Post Milgram Experiment... I've read Stanley Milgram. I even have a copy of the later book (Obedience to Authority, 1974). You are posturing. I'm surprised you didn't quote from Proust while you were at it. |
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Dec 16, 2011 18:33:40 GMT -4
Yeah, I am still waiting for that info as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by damnsod on Dec 16, 2011 18:41:56 GMT -4
I Noticed No One Picked Up On My Newtonian Equations For Calculating The Time It Would Take For A Radio Signal To Reach The Moon... Show you can achieve the same rigor with the important part of the calculation; how you arrived at the signal delay. How have you controlled for possible edits in the secondary source you are using? How have you controlled for the well-known effects of overlapping conversation and conversational pauses? Have you accounted for changes in the signal path over the length of the transmission? Have you included human reaction time? These are among the questions you have to show you have made an attempt to answer, or demonstrated they are statistically unimportant, before your single calculation is meaningful.
That The Signal Could Penetrate The Ionosphere,
That They Used A Transmitting/Receiving Devise On The Moon That Was Actually Powerful Enough To Send A Signal Back,
And That Richard Nixon Was An Honest Politician,
Not A Slimey, Lying Toe-rag, That You Would Not Even Like To Buy A Used Car From...!!!
|
|
