Dear Dr. Solo (Mommy, he's doing it again, Mommy, he used my name,
make him stop, Mommy. Whinnnnneeee).

Sorry dear heart, but what you're defending is not what you said. You
took issue with the science without having a clue about what was
there. Just because you teach some second rate course on "SCIENCE"
doen't qualify you as an expert. In fact, if that web site is any
indication of what you're teaching, we are in trouble.

Remember, you're the one who criticized a set of results that has
nothing to do with the methods used, data collected or interpretations
inferred from those data. All I did was point out the ignorance of
that statement. You can't come back now and give me this crapola about
objectivity. You are the one who rejected an objective analysis in the
first place. You are doing exactly what your second rate class is
telling your student to not do.

Also, I did not defend the study. I don't give a good flying ratsass
about the study. What I did was attack your ignorance (Mommy, he's
doing it again, make him stop).

Sorry if you find that a personal attack but I take ignorance
personally when it's coming from someone who is charged with teaching
our children about science. You're a disgrace to your profession
(MOMMY!!!) if what you teach bears any resemblence to what you're
telling us you teach.

My guess is that you have nothing to do with teaching that class. My
guess is you took the class in some second rate junior college back in
some hollow in the woods behind the trailer park, and you've lifted
the web pages wholesale to try to make some dumb point about how you
know all about SCIENCE. Even the stuff you posted here reads like it's
been cribbed from Rhetoric and Communications 1A. But that's probably
because I'd rather believe that your ignorant ravings are those of
some C- student at TTCC than someone who actually is paid to teach the
tripe you claim you teach.

gg

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:28:49 GMT, wrote:

|I teach my students to look for various kinds of bias including in funding and to
|rank just how prestigious and WELL refereed the journal is that the study is
|published in. Then it is up to my students to decide for themselves just how much
|they want to believe the results of the study.
|http://users.megapathdsl.net/~solo/w..._fall2002.html see the first
|section on bias
|
|What you write is a personal attack on me as defense of the study.
|http://users.megapathdsl.net/~solo/w...l_attacks.html
|Feelings. Nobody can argue about how one "feels". Beliefs. What a person "believes"
|cannot be debated since they are not facts, but beliefs. Debating with people who are
|not willing to discuss anything but how they FEEL is pointless.
|- However, people can discuss and debate facts. - Facts can be true or false, can be
|misinterpreted, misquoted, misunderstood or incomplete. That is the point of
|discussion and debates, to clarify and understand what the facts are.
|The discussion and debate of facts can become derailed. One or both persons may feel
|their beliefs are being assaulted. Then the discussion degenerates into a personal
|attack.
|
|HOW TO DETERMINE THAT A PERSONAL ATTACK IS OCCURRING
|1. A personal attack or assault is not a discussion of facts. It begins with
|the attacker clearly identifying the person being attacked either by name or by the
|use of "you" repeatedly
|2. The attack is full of emotional words, feelings, beliefs and opinions, but few
|facts.
|3. The attacker typically proposes or insinuates elaborate motives (often
|conspiracies) for behavior that has no basis in fact. Ascribing motives to another
|person is, of course, unknowable. Motives are negative for the most part.
|4. Name calling and character assassination is typical.
|5. The attacker will often refer to "unidentified others" who share their beliefs and
|"know what they know".
|6. The attack is most often public to be effective.
|
wrote:
|Sorry Dr. Solo,
|.... #1
|cheap shot.
|Sorry state of affairs
|ignorance
|assinine comments
|it's stupidity.
|your nonsense
|.... #2, #4
|
|Every working scientist knows
|We know
|should we leave
|.... #5
|
|
|
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
|http://puregold.aquaria.net/
|www.drsolo.com
|Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
|compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
|endorsements or recommendations I make.