agendas in science

the entertainment value of conversing with sock puppets has it's limits. at least have the sock puppet say something new so that his rhetorical circle's diameter is greater than three inches.

For someone with nothing to say, you sure do say it loud, ghost dog.

So far, the pattern I've noticed is:

1. Start new thread with inflammatory title.
2. Make bold, sweeping statements designed to be vague enough to have philosophical wiggle room.
3. Insult everyone who attempts to clarify, disagree, discuss, or debate--anything less than pure compliance with your completely non-stated stated views
4. Repeat until people get annoyed with you.

The sole exception I've seen to this pattern so far is the very clear, very open-ended, very informative, cooperative, inquisitive, helpful, and community-building thread about the ideal temple .

This proves you're capable of actually adding a great deal to the community and its discussions in a positive fashion. My question to you is why you don't make that your habit instead of baseless insults on strangers through the anonymity of the Internet.

agendas in science is not an inflammatory title, dear sir, it is a fact that there are agendas in science.

you are the one reacting in an inflammatory manner for reasons that i have zero control over. i'm sharing information that i find interesting. your potential reactions to it were more than i had ever considered before posting them. at first i was a bit shocked that someone would have the type of inflammation that you have displayed on a jedi forum. then i was disappointed that it was happening on a jedi forum. after reflecting on the matter and meditating on many sides of the spectrum i am coming around, once again, to the perspective that i do not care what you think.

i have done nothing but share information i find fascinating, and you and gisteron have continually attacked me personally, even point blank admitting it. so it is not my imagination.

it is your imagination forming your perspective of my intent, deceit, and character. you are doing all the things that you are accusing me of doing. i've stated this numerous times in different ways. your perpetual plump psychosis is getting a bit tiresome.

i come to this forum to expand my perspective, share my thoughts, and receive reflections. i've received your reflection. you have your right to your opinion. when a turd is shat upon the earth and reintroduced into someone's lower colon to be shat out again the aroma doth not improve. it just gets a little tiresome to watch.

steamboat28 wrote: For someone with nothing to say, you sure do say it loud, ghost dog.

coming from you that is actually the highest compliment that i could receive. thank you.

are you a fan of the movie Dead Man? or is this just another insane coincidence and Loki poking his head into the illusion laughing his ass off. and if you can't be honest for once please don't reply.

That there are agendas in science is not a fact. The opposite is though, and I can prove it. But instead of proving it I will take the ghost dog route and call you laughable for not taking me by my word. Then I will call your behaviour inflammatory because you wouldn't appreciate my scoffing at you for your critical response, which is perfectly fine, because that's what simple-minded mannequins do anyway.

Or I could go my own route and kindly ask you for a reference to a scientific study you surely conducted at some point during the past decade. I don't even care that you try to make it look like you had no idea what science is although you still seem to hold yourself an authority on big conspiracies covering it up for centuries, or that you seem to hold yourself an authority on what true Christianity was and how it suffered the same treatment. You make a lot of big, big claims without ever providing a shred of evidence to support any of them. Instead you provide plentiful condescension, scoff and insults. For all I care, please, continue, but expect to be called out on it - there are people here who will do that in my stead and rest asured that we will not let you get away with this.
What I will call you out on is the one claim whereby you allege that you have been an "actual professional scientist" being paid for his contribution for as long as a decade. I am hesitant though not unwilling to believe that you are, even though you make every effort to make the opposite seem true. But things are seldom as they seem and reality is not contingent upon my perception of it. Unlike the rest of the world as you claim it, I do not hate the truth. I find it paramount in almost every case the exceptions to which were never a matter in this forum. So if you can show the truth of anything you say, I shall accept it and be perhaps joined in this by some of our brothers and sisters from the Temple. If all you have to offer is more dismissal and insults, I'll for one take those, too. There are plenty others here to judge who was reasonable and who was patient and I trust they will judge wisely between you and the likes of steam and myself... dear sir.

gisteron, you are a moron. if i have to spell it out for you how agendas INfluence science you are not worth my time.

That's your retort? After reading this whole thing, I think one thing we can all agree on is that gisteron is not a moron. We can disagree on whether the sky is green or Jesus lived or whatever, but I have read some smart stuff from this guy, and I'm no slouch.

Also, I don't think he was addressing the title of the post anymore.

you are correct i think the proper psychological term is imbecile.

he hasn't addressed the title once. he simply wants to engage in a light saber weighing and measurement contest. i retired from those twenty years ago.

ghost dog wrote: you are correct i think the proper psychological term is imbecile.

steamboat28 wrote:

1. Start new thread with inflammatory title.
2. Make bold, sweeping statements designed to be vague enough to have philosophical wiggle room.
3. Insult everyone who attempts to clarify, disagree, discuss, or debate--anything less than pure compliance with your completely non-stated stated views
4. Repeat until people get annoyed with you.

steamboat28 wrote:

ghost dog wrote: you are correct i think the proper psychological term is imbecile.

steamboat28 wrote:

1. Start new thread with inflammatory title.
2. Make bold, sweeping statements designed to be vague enough to have philosophical wiggle room.
3. Insult everyone who attempts to clarify, disagree, discuss, or debate--anything less than pure compliance with your completely non-stated stated views
4. Repeat until people get annoyed with you.

he is not debating anything. he is a broken record.