Re: [APD] Theory vs. Actual

[urville <urville at peoplepc_com>]

sorry jerry. its not against any one person. it's just the fact that 
resolution never comes, and it gets to where as i read it, it's just 
bickering. and sometimes when i ask a question people seem to completely 
ignore or it reply with this sarcastic toned complete slap about how 
it's just crazy because blah blah blah. it gets a little aggravating. 
you start feling like theres a lot of pompous know it alls that are just 
blowing smoke and puffing up to look bigger rather than interested 
enthusiasts who have something to contribute in a good nature.
again thats not towards you or any one person. just an aggravation, i 
dont paticularly like being made small or watching other people do it to 
each other either. i mean i can go watch some crappy realty show if i 
want that.
ahh...
just blew some steam is all..

ian

Jerry Baker wrote:

>urville wrote:
>  
>
>>look sorry. i'm just tired of the crazy arguments on these subjests and 
>>suddenly the subject is gone with no answer gained, no progress 
>>acheived, only to be replaced by more of the same with a new subject 
>>heading. thats why i like tom. he did it, it worked. he tried to 
>>replicate it. it worked. he may get the deep down science but he doesnt 
>>push it on anyone, he does what almost every great inventor has ever 
>>done. he proved it with real world applications.
>>
>>and folks thats science to me.
>>    
>>
>
>Amen to that. Tom does a lot of good work. I don't second-guess that for 
>a second.
>
>I am just not the type satisfied with, "it just works." I want to know 
>why it works. Understanding the processes at work behind any phenomena 
>gives direction for further experimentation.
>
>I asked a couple of questions of Tom about his theory when he posted it, 
>and he chose to ignore them. After that, I posted an idea for conducting 
>an experiment and suddenly my posts are worth responding to again 
>(notice a pattern?). Instead of saying, "well, the reason I thought that 
>CO2 was building up on the leaves was because I had previously inquired 
>about the CO2 I was using and had found it to be 99.97% pure. That ruled 
>out other gases accumulating," I get something to the effect of, "you 
>stupid little person, why would you want to experiment with that? It's 
>not going to make any difference."
>
>This is a repeating pattern. Tom expressed in another thread that he had 
>tried using ozone to control algae and hadn't had much luck with it. I 
>thought it was great that he had tried using oxygen radicals to combat 
>algae on such a large scale, so I asked him how much he used. The answer 
>I got ... silence. Same answer I got on the CO2 bubbles thing.
>
>Perhaps it is because I don't show the proper deference to his lordship 
>by having the unmitigated gall to ask questions. I don't know. I asked 
>and the questions were ignored. So, I thought out loud about a way to 
>test them for myself. I apologize to anyone who has taken offense to 
>that. It is very clear to me that this list is not interested in 
>understanding why a particular thing works, just as long as it works.
>
>I will not spam the list with anything other than proper praise and 
>unquestioning acceptance for each post Mr. Barr makes.
>
>  
>
_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants