Guest Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 That would probably be an excellent idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) Do you accept or reject their claim and why? I'll bite. Reject it because of what I see, touch, and feel. Edited August 31, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 According to your statement, you and the "scientist that knows all about ice" are in agreement about effects of the ice. But someone else has a different opinion on the effects. Do you accept or reject their claim and why? Ah, I see your problem now. You misquoted me. I didn't say anything about being in agreement with the scientist as to the effects of ice. I said: Doesn't matter whether I can explain how water turns into ice or not. I can still make it & put it in my tea. It works as good for me as it does for some scientist who knows all about it. What does that have to do with some nut that can't tell the difference between iced tea & molten lava? Your question doesn't pertain to my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Point taken...sooo, how did he get in then? By the way, him acting a fool in public and insinuating he is stupid for an educated man are not the same thing. Not really anything worth arguing about to me either. "In" where? He was banned from the old BFF and every forum I can think of. He wasn't allowed into the conference where Meldrum was speaking that day (nor any other conference - he was universally banned - he got in once by lying about his name but ended up being escorted out). He crashed the party for Meldrum by stalking others who were attending. So what do you mean by "in"? Is there some secret bigfoot society that people are a member of? He acted like a fool in public and he WAS stupid for a man who got his education 40 years before. He couldn't carry on a normal converstation with anyone at anytime. Just because someone was sane enough in 1961 to graduate college doesn't mean he was sane later. Why exactly are you defending this guy? Do you want RayG and I to throw down our cards - cause if you do, I'll gladly make you a list of some of the horrible insane things that man did. And it has nothing to do that he believed in the paranormal - I would have thought the same about him had he been a "flesh and blooder." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Reread the thread Hairy. Ray threw his cards down. It's been let go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) I read the thread. You're the one who said "let him in"...I was trying to clarify what you meant. If you want to let it go, I'm good with it. Edit: and by cards I meant specific details of specific behavior. RayG only gave you the tip of the iceberg..he hardly threw his cards down. I will always have a very soft spot in my heart for the hell RayG went through (but don't tell him that...it will ruin my tough girl persona). Edited August 31, 2011 by HairyMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Sasfooty, I see your point, I think. Let's try this again then. So when you say "it", you were not referring to ice but the process of making ice? If so, than you have a basic understanding of the process if you are able to make it. Meaning you know to put the ice trays of water into the freezer and not ice trays filled with sand in the stove. Also, the scientist who knows all about the process will be able to tell you why on the molecular level. The basic premise is the same. If I say that I can make ice by putting sand in the stove, the scientist would and should reject this theory because after all, he knows all about "it". You would now be able to agree with his rejection of my theory because you have a basic understanding about the water and the freezer parts of the equation even though you can't explain why the water turns into ice. Even if you know nothing about the process, the scientists knows "all about it" and your results are the same. Any differences in the process that differ from yours can now be rejected by you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) I would never interfere in your business like that. If you want to put sand in the stove thinking it will result in ice, that's fine with me. Edited August 31, 2011 by Sasfooty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Lol okay fair enough. You could if you wanted to though. If it were true, I wouldn't bring it up on a discussion board if I didn't want to discuss it. I would put it up on some form of one way communication like a blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 It is JMO that we drop this whole line of thinking since, in essence, it is to protect a guy who caused a lot of pain to others for not conforming to his ideas. That is the kind of guy I want to play Devil's Advocate against, not for. I think the argument has sufficiently shown their are some good thinkers (outside the obvious) who are at the least willing to entertain what we would currently call supernatural behavior from Sasquatch. Again, JMO. Now, on a lighter note, in he words of the Godfather: "This Thread is dead to me" (OK, Ok, I paraphrased...) Good night. I'm here all week. Try the veal, it's delicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 it is to protect a guy who caused a lot of pain to others for not conforming to his ideas. Seems like nobody is considering the pain that he may have suffered from those others because he wouldn't conform to their beliefs. Sometimes the bullies just jump on the wrong guy, & when he fights back & turns out to have nastier tactics than they do, they want to cry foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChrisBFRPKY Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Let's please remember to keep our focus on the researcher's views and not the researcher. Thanks, Chris B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Yeah, such a classy guy that EB was, even made fun of my son, who was born with Down Syndrome, and made it a point to continually refer to me as 'retard'. Wow, that pains me just reading that. Sorry you and your son experienced that. That is horrible. I'm amazed at your restraint to not have hurt him when he did that. It sounds like a lot of people were able to put up with him without losing it and harming him which really surprises me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Seems like nobody is considering the pain that he may have suffered from those others because he wouldn't conform to their beliefs. Sometimes the bullies just jump on the wrong guy, & when he fights back & turns out to have nastier tactics than they do, they want to cry foul. Like making fun of a kid for having down syndrome?...It's good practice to not opine on topics of which one is ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 It's good practice to not opine on topics of which one is ignorant. Looks like you found something we can agree on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts