Xamonas Chegwé wrote:Twiglet wrote:Xamonas Chegwé wrote:Twiglet wrote:Xamonas Chegwé wrote:
Produce a definite refutation of his theory - no vague hints about flying carpets, such as Col came out with and which he still has not explained - maybe I am stupid but I don't get it! This is not a seminar for PhD physics students, it is an online forum with many differing degrees of expertise present, all of whom are interested in this discussion. If there is a simple, obvious rebuttal of farsight's theory, or any part of it, kindly share it with the rest of us and with him!
I can no more refute his theory than I can refute that God exists or that the FSMs noodly appendage controls everything. However, I and various other posters have very firmly evidenced that his posts are totally at variance with scientific consensus and no more deserve to be called science than the FSM. I am not trying to make this thread about farsight. There are quite enough of those already.
Then stop calling him a shill.
Excuse me?
I linked the word shill, and went on to discuss it. Farsight reacted to that link as if it was an accusation, his problem not mine. If you are going to moderate what I say, which you clearly are doing in bright blue, then please react to what I say rather than someones elses reaction to it.
It was an accusation. The blue post was in direct response to you
repeating the accusation here:
As for you being a shill, well, if you are I certainly wouldn't expect you to own up to it. The evidence of your behaviour speaks for itself.
Please drop it.
Sorry Xamonas but I really don't get this, so perhaps you can explain it to me once and for all, and clear up my confusion. In previous threads you have made it clear that you do not moderate content technically, but you do moderate ad hominem attacks and courtesy.
I did not call farsight a shill. I linked in the word shill, and subsequently much later, in response to farsights accusation of calling him a shill.. which I didn't do, I responded by saying that the evidence of his posts speak for themselves.
You have asked me directly to "refute his theoies" - were you asking that as a moderator or a member? I'm having a hard time distinguishing what capacity you are posting in.
I did not make an ad hominem attack, either in my original post or my subsequent reply to farsight. I have quieried the scientific accuracy of his posts in this and other threads, but what's wrong with that?
If I am reacting in any way defensively here, it is because from where I sit, you seem intent on defending farsights right to post his speculations in the science section, without being called to account on the validity of anything he says from a technical viewpoint, and yet, above, you are asking me to account for myself technically, and I am just wondering in what capacity you are doing that, or how you would even know (given your own self declared unfamiliarity with the science) if I had done so.
I was not making an issue of this. I ignored farsights reaction and continued to link in articles to explain what I meant by shill (which you asked me to do as well as asking me to qualify whether even linking in the word was an attack on farsight) - and only after farsight & col had got into it in a major way did I react to the one part of farsights post which concerned me. For the record, I don't think farsight is a shill, I think he has deluded himself into the belief that his speculations are scientific, rather than just speculations.
Where were you on that occasion asking farsight to desist from accusing me of attacking him? Instead you choose to step in as a mod to defend farsight after he had accused me of doing something I didn't do, and me having the audacity to respond to it.