I stand on what I posted.
Your 'criticisms', quoted below, would
only have validity if everything was already
While Humanity is short of that mark, it's
not only 'appropriate' to add connections
within scientific discourse, if one can, one
is Obliged to do so.
Science differes from 'social-correctness'
in this way.
K. P. Collins
"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:2vc430ddq71qnfl40o2mhjimv1q6anjil0 at 4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:10:17 GMT, "k p Collins"
> <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>> } "Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
> } news:r7lu20pj0ecl6sb09e6eatdm7ie55agftj at 4ax.com...> } > On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:36:11 -0500, r norman <rsn_ at _comcast.net>
> } > wrote:
> } >
> } > } Ken's posts are most definitely disruptive.
> } >
> } > As I've said elsewhere, I don't expect (and definitely don't demand)
> } > he stop posting. I only request -- no, honestly I insist -- he stop
> } > answering straightforward questions with irrelevant material whether
> } > from his "theory" or not.
> } > [...]
> } Who are you so so Dictate what will be within scientific discourse?
>> I don't, and I have said as much. Carry on with as much discourse as
> you like. But don't bother others by posting it in threads where it
> doesn't belong. Responding to all specific questions with material
> that has nothing to do with those questions is not discourse, it is
> automatic, if not compulsive, monolog.
>> } You presume too-much when you presume to know what is "irrelevant".
>> You presume too much when you presume that statement is correct.
>> Specific questions have specific answers. Responding to them with
> material that is not related to the question at hand is in fact
> responding with irrelevant material. It requires no understanding of
> science at all to grasp that fact. I don't know just what it is that
> makes people steadfastly refuse to grasp that fact, and don't really
> care, but the problem is obviously not due to a lack of scientific
> understanding. There are a lot of people without scientific
> understanding and for the most part they don't do this.
>> It's a big newsgroup, Ken. In fact it has no realistic size limit that
> would mean anything to people posting text messages. There's plenty of
> room for everyone. That is not the same as saying every single thread
> is fair game for anyone who wants to add anything. Technically they
> can, but it is considered rude to do so, just as it is considered rude
> to barge into a conversation and hold forth on whatever one wishes
> without regard for the topic of the conversation in progress.
>> Imagine doing that in person, Ken. I can't conceive of you doing so.
> As to why you insist on doing it here is up to you to care about or
> not, and determine or not. We will all continue to deal with the
> results in our own ways.