'Scope on the Moon's surface

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by blindman

NO, other 70% are naive and blindly believe NASA.
Reading, reading, guys (1 language quite enough :-)

You said that 30% hate lies. So by pure mathematics alone, your claim necessitates that the other 70% must not hate lies.

[blindman]

Originally Posted by AussieTrooper

You said that 30% hate lies. So by pure mathematics alone, your claim necessitates that the other 70% must not hate lies.

I hope you are not a teacher :-)
30% of americans are not believing "scientists", that is what I meant.

[N1 (Mirko)]

Originally Posted by blindman

I hope you are not a teacher :-)
30% of americans are not believing "scientists", that is what I meant.

"Believing" - that's excatly what's wrong with this whole discussion. There isn't anything or anybody to be "believed". There is only evidence, from which conclusions can be drawn as to what the facts are likely to be. Importantly, those conclusions are subject to change when the evidence changes. There is no place in this process for "believing".

The fact that you are alive, Neven, derives from decisions you have made based on evidence and experience you had, in favour of your most likely survival scenario. Think about it next time you cross a road.

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by blindman

I hope you are not a teacher :-)
30% of americans are not believing "scientists", that is what I meant.

Then perhaps that is what you should have said.

Since you decided to bring up the subject of teaching, a few pointers for you.

americans: Ensure you capitalise all proper nouns.

"scientists": You are using quotation marks. Who are you quoting?

...are not believing scientists: You sentence refers to scientists who don't believe something, when it's clear from your posting history that you are trying to say that it is the scientists who are not being believed.

Sourcing: You have used unsourced statistics in your statement.

Your hope that I am not a teacher is well founded indeed. I would have given you an F.

[graham.hobart (Graham stevens)]

Originally Posted by AussieTrooper

Then perhaps that is what you should have said.

Since you decided to bring up the subject of teaching, a few pointers for you.

americans: Ensure you capitalise all proper nouns.

"scientists": You are using quotation marks. Who are you quoting?

...are not believing scientists: You sentence refers to scientists who don't believe something, when it's clear from your posting history that you are trying to say that it is the scientists who are not being believed.

Sourcing: You have used unsourced statistics in your statement.

Your hope that I am not a teacher is well founded indeed. I would have given you an F.

Dr Graz McLune !!

[blindman]

Originally Posted by N1

"Believing" - that's excatly what's wrong with this whole discussion. There isn't anything or anybody to be "believed". There is only evidence, from which conclusions can be drawn as to what the facts are likely to be. Importantly, those conclusions are subject to change when the evidence changes. There is no place in this process for "believing".

The fact that you are alive, Neven, derives from decisions you have made based on evidence and experience you had, in favour of your most likely survival scenario. Think about it next time you cross a road.

I won't mentioned your name (because that what is used in marketing calls on which I am allergic), but that is what I am trying to explain to you - there is many contradictories in "evidence" and evidence. Try to google Dr. Howind videos and you will maybe think about word evidence.
Cheers

[blindman]

Originally Posted by AussieTrooper

Then perhaps that is what you should have said.

Since you decided to bring up the subject of teaching, a few pointers for you.

americans: Ensure you capitalise all proper nouns.

"scientists": You are using quotation marks. Who are you quoting?

...are not believing scientists: You sentence refers to scientists who don't believe something, when it's clear from your posting history that you are trying to say that it is the scientists who are not being believed.

Sourcing: You have used unsourced statistics in your statement.

Your hope that I am not a teacher is well founded indeed. I would have given you an F.

Sorry, it is more than 1 source for 30% of americans non believing NASA scientists, so I just used it here.
Why F? I hope it is not your Ego?
Cheers

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by blindman

Sorry, it is more than 1 source for 30% of americans non believing NASA scientists, so I just used it here.
Why F? I hope it is not your Ego?
Cheers

You get an F because your post fails on all pre-requisites for persuasive writing.
Even when the premise is false, a student will usually receive a good grade if they submit a well written, correctly sourced paper. You fail on both counts.
Based on the fact that you repeated your mistakes in your next post, don't expect a better mark in the future either.

[blindman]

Originally Posted by AussieTrooper

You get an F because your post fails on all pre-requisites for persuasive writing.
Even when the premise is false, a student will usually receive a good grade if they submit a well written, correctly sourced paper. You fail on both counts.
Based on the fact that you repeated your mistakes in your next post, don't expect a better mark in the future either.

Ha, it was deliberately.
If you do not have contra arguments, do not jump one someone's back
(i.e. negative approach)

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by blindman

Ha, it was deliberately.
If you do not have contra arguments, do not jump one someone's back
(i.e. negative approach)

If it was 'deliberately,' then you must be psychic, as you have been spamming this forum with that crap for weeks now.

[blindman]

Originally Posted by AussieTrooper

If it was 'deliberately,' then you must be psychic, as you have been spamming this forum with that crap for weeks now.

It is not spamming - just different approach.
We are all trying to get some research (main drive in Astronomy, right?)
If not, it would be easier just to hang on NASA website, isn't that true?

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by blindman

It is not spamming - just different approach.
We are all trying to get some research (main drive in Astronomy, right?)
If not, it would be easier just to hang on NASA website, isn't that true?

You've dragged this rubbish over several threads on different topics. That is spamming.

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTbeUe83NFk

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

or
That Mitchell and Webb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

[Chris85 (Chris)]

Originally Posted by blindman

Try to google Dr. Howind videos and you will maybe think about word evidence.
Cheers

Do you mean Dr Hovind, the young earth creationist?

[blindman]

Originally Posted by Chris85

Do you mean Dr Hovind, the young earth creationist?

Yes Chris, (that's why I didn't enter finale of Spelling Bee)

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

ha ha a young earth creationist?

[blindman]

Originally Posted by KenGee

ha ha a young earth creationist?

So you are for Big Bang Theory?

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by blindman

So you are for Big Bang Theory?

Wow the fallacy of relative privation at work.