Quote:
Originally Posted by rally
Steven,
I guess your perverted response is why some people dont bother participating in the Science forum - nor shall I bother in future.
I/We do not accept this behaviour as acceptable, I dont suggest that we do, but we should accept that this is the sort of behaviour we are likely to receive intentionally or unintentionally.
The act of folly is not in setting the rules - its believing that by setting a rule it will be followed !!
But seemingly you dont get this.
Setting an even better set of rules, when as you have acknowledged there are already rules to cover the issues is what I am addressing.
As the scientist you profess to be, you should not dare to deliberately twist someone's statements - to suggest I implied "that such behaviour is an exclusive property of mainstream science" and then on such a false attribution to then conclude "is clearly wrong" is offensive to any ones sensibilities - this is the clear domain trait of the pseudoscientists and you surprise me at your proficient use of such logic.
I made no such implication, the fact remains that it has happened in science over history.
This sort of reply and others who reply in a similar fashion is the reason people are offended on a regular basis on this forum and are afraid to post.
I should have seen it coming but I was trying to keep the argument logical and away from science.
Your statement ". . . The behaviour here is positively angelic . . ." is quite true and again is the reason why I question the need for an increased level beauracracy to cater for such a non problem.
Seems to me the so called "scientists" are repeatedly some of the worst culprits of poor form on this forum, especially when one takes a counter view irrespective of whether its science or general argument such as mine.
Good bye
Rally,
|
First of all don't try patronizing me and insulting my intelligence.
My original post was specfically on hijacking of threads, you took it totally out of context as is is your willingness to construct strawman arguments at the drop of a hat.
Let me quote you as an example.
Quote:
|
Science throughout the ages has been a source of violent disagreement, contrary interpretation, counter theories, questionable ethics, peer review disagreement, emotive argument and a catalyst of character attacks and public discreditation to name but a few - this happens to be main stream science
|
For my benefit and anyone else who is curious, why shouldn't anyone conclude that this only occurs in mainstream science. They're your words not mine so don't give me a lecture on taking you out of context with the subsequent personal attacks.
Go read up on the meaning of a Mission Statement. They are distinct from rules.
Steven