[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [APD] Science

it's completely obvious how that factored in when you take the conversation in the appropritae context. i guess reread... I was summarizing alot from a larger version I was going to reply to you with when I realized that people have been complaining about these arguments lately and I suddenly felt kind of bad for having been part of it subjecting them to more of the same.

I dont think that statement has anything to do with being uncomfortable. I was trying to get across that while I used certain say "for instances" I never made claim to belief that ALL science is a fraud, or that ALL science is a lie. This is like that girl who immdeiatly thought I was one of those people killing science. When a good discussion is one the key elements to science. And your assumption that I want everyone to get along in a candy land where no ones feelings get hurt. which was not the case. frustration at someone who isnt completely getting what your saying and injecting their own maybes into it is different than me going "dont ask me why I believe". which would be a uncomfortable statement. Its also not the same thing as someone saying oh these people dont know any better and we should make sure we federally mandate this action so they cant hurt themselves. one is forced belief. which was part of what i was trying to say.

 I'm not saying your trying to irritate me jerry. Dont think that, because i dont think it. people here just have a tendancy to talk down to one another. Some people do it to people who dont know any better, and thats just sad. Some do it I can only guess to make themselves feel better. It's been bugging me lately because I think it's really rude. Secondly, I 've had a person or two actually send me a personal email asking me why "so and so" always has to have such a holier than thou attitude, or as my favorite goes if I heard my kid talk to someone like that i'd smack him.  I dont feel like leaving to avoid it, but it's aggravating nonetheless.

see I NEVER said you cant scrutinize Tom did I? In fact the words Tom Barr and Jerry Baker have appeared all but once? maybe twice in all of this from my keyboard. Once or twice for tom to refrence the argument about his idea. And onceor twice for Jerry stating the post was not against or directed at him, or to reply. what i DID say was that i used the method and had fantastic success. then i said i didnt care how it worked, because it worked, and then i was trying to also state that coupled with this some people are really being jerks by glazing their posts with bad attitudes and snide tones. All of which i think are legitimate beliefs and feelings.

but you'd think i was freaking toms lab partner. ridiculous. not that i wouldnt be toms lab partner. ahem.
and i'm not on anyones team period. my ISSUE was completely seperate from the "You cant treat tom that way" discussion. and had nothing to do with if you believe tom or not or want him to supply proof. people i agree with still act like they are better than everyone else all the time here. I just think if we're ADULT enough to talk science we should be ADULT enough to do so without acting like children, being overbearing, or forcing our ideals on others. 

For godssakes if i came in and saw this, and i was new. I wouldnt ask any questions either.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Baker <jerry at bakerweb_biz>
Sent: Nov 2, 2005 11:59 PM
To: aquatic plants digest <aquatic-plants at actwin_com>
Subject: Re: [APD] Science

urville wrote:
> to bypass all the arguing and lengthy responses let me say this. which 
> is more to my original point. Having a degree doesnt keep a person from 
> being a complete distasteful individual i wouldnt want to be around. i 
> dont think i really need to draw that line in the sand. it's obvious.

That is so very true, but I'm not sure what the influence of college 
degrees on the likability of a person has to do with this conversation???

> i 
> think SOME things are possibly not true, and SOME things happen for 
> different reasons than we currently believe.

That's a good topic of conversation. Sometimes I ask people to elaborate 
on the reasons, or the logical basis, for their beliefs. Most people are 
uncomfortable having someone else question their beliefs. Some even view 
it as an attack. I think it's really just a case of projecting an 
internal discomfort with our own beliefs. It seems to me that when I am 
made uncomfortable by someone questioning my beliefs, it is really 
because I am being shown (or reminded) that my belief is either 
incorrect, or has no logical basis. It is only when I have no doubt that 
I am not uncomfortable with the questions.

>  I think anything based on 
> observation ahs the variable of perspective amking it less than 100% 
> reliable. I'm often pragmatic by nature so prove it is an important part 
> of my system at times. There are many levels and types of intelligence. 
> And knowledge istn one of them for me. it's a process of memory only, 
> there is no origination at its basic level. things IMO can get too 
> semantic i believe this discussion has, i'm as guilty as any. I also 
> dont want to bother the list with it anymore as you cant change my 
> perspective anymore than I yours which is evident by the post. and on 
> and on. I never questioned your belief to not be true. I only stated I 
> agreed with Tom thus making me as big a target. i dont htink people have 
> the right to make others believe the same things as them or society at 
> large. period.
> All the self righteous and know it alls i've ever known 
> are lonely people. deduce your own feelings on that. i never disagreed 
> with you. nor did i agree.
> was anything proven?

The point of a public list is not only to engage in a private 
conversation between two individuals. These posts are archived for 
posterity. Perhaps there is someone else out there with an interest in 
the conversation. I haven't challenged your statements, or anyone else's 
because I wanted to irritate you. I challenge them because this is a 
"public record" so to speak, and it is important that new claims be 
subject to scrutiny.

> and finally to be snide for two seconds...
> who gives a crap what a piano does on  pluto. 

Why, you do. Here, I'll remind you:

Rachel: would you like to stand under a suspended piano and see what 
happens when I cut the rope?
urville: can we do it on another planet?

Jerry Baker
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com

PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com