Just tidying up some ignorance and misconceptions:

[paddoboy]

Incidentally, I think I know why paddo stopped posting in this thread. He got the same answer as you, Origin and I have been giving, on the dot net site: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic...ave-mass/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-1116708

Well, well, the third troll that follows me over at SFN! And this one supposedly has me on ignore! Perhaps if he had chosen to actually read, I admitted nothing more then what I know and have agreed with here. And perhaps if "little miss goody two shoes" had done some more time investigating instead of playing to James and origin, he may have also noticed my absence on that forum. But that would be expecting to much of this stooge.
And lo and behold, ably supported by the forum moderator!!!

Interesting. Of course, so far he hasn't been big enough to come here and admit he was wrong. That's if he believes the answer he got over there, of course. Maybe he's going to keep searching until somebody gives him the answer he'd prefer.

Let me clear it up for your dull mind James. I admitted nothing more then what I agree with here. In fact as you have so dishonestly ignored, all I am saying and have said all along, is that the fool that originally picked up Arfa on his mention of photon being energy, was being pedantic. I have not changed that view, and the fact that I have given links supporting the that, particularly https://www.quora.com/If-it-is-true...nergy-must-all-energy-be-contained-in-photons, among many others, show I am spot on. In fact some of your own questionable comparisons also support that. But this thread anyway is not about how obtuse you and your two cohorts are, it is just me clearing up the mess you have created, and which is shown next.
My reasons for not being here or elsewhere, is that I have been out of the country and off the grid, so to speak, and have only recently arrived back home to see the GF between my Roosters and the Raiders. I will be going back on Friday, so once again, my absence from here, and elsewhere should be expected. Where have I been? On a tiny Island between Viti Levu and Vanua Levu on Molake involved with a little project that at this time I am unable to elaborate on.

Fuck off.
[Click]

Gee James, you just recently pinned me for far less, and you let this go? Or didn't you see it? Or do you chose not to upset you goody two shoes mate? Whichever applies, shows what I and others I also see, how inconsistent and choosy you are in who you moderate.
The next matter concerns our forum policeman, and another miss goody two shoes and hypocrite....

Reported. Calling forum members names because they pointed out your errors is really bad form.[/QUOTE
Reported for name calling

So it appears the forum's policeman, and another miss goody two shoes failed to report exchemist's use of the in and out word, to tell arfa to pissoff?
Or perhaps like you James, he is rather picky and choosy on who he reports. Reminds me somewhat of a little girl giggling.

OK James, some advice....Firstly try posting without ridicule. I mean as a mod, you should be out setting an example don't you think? And of course its just another form of bullying. Perhaps you need to take a leaf out of Kittamaru, who moderated without fear or favour, and who did far more then you or any other mod in keeping the ratbags and trolls at bay, but sadly he isn't with us any more. And secondly James, no I aint in any way shape or form a sexist as you cowardly labeled me in another thread. By the same token, I am not entirely politically correct, and don't simply assume some new drive or aspect that governments and/or society would like to ram down my throat.
I hope you can do better in future.

ps: On the thread you closed you kept asking if energy is stuff. No, of course it is not stuff, at least not stuff you can put in a bucket! But neither is space stuff, and neither is time stuff, and neither is spacetime stuff, but at least all are still real, although some will argue about that.

 

[wegs]

lol Someone, pass the popcorn.

 

[paddoboy]

lol Someone, pass the popcorn.

That stuff will make you fat wegsy!

 

[paddoboy]

double up

 

[wegs]

That stuff will make you fat wegsy!

Lol not if I buy the light kind

Carry on with your rant ^_^

 

[James R]

I'm going to assume that this rant thread is mostly addressed to me or, at least, I'll respond to the bits that address me by name. Really, paddoboy, aren't you getting too old to be throwing tantrums like this?

Perhaps if he had chosen to actually read, I admitted nothing more then what I know and have agreed with here.

Okay. You're on the record as not retracting your silly claim that photons are energy.

That's fine. We're all clear on that. It's your prerogative if you want to continue to believe an absurdity, in spite of having your ongoing error carefully explained to you. The thread in question is closed now, anyway. Unless you have something new to add on the topic - and it doesn't look like you do - we're done with that, aren't we?

Let me clear it up for your dull mind James.

Childish insults, eh? Is that going to be how you roll from now on, or is it just for this thread? Really, paddoboy, you're making a nasty spectacle of yourself. Surely you're better than this? How disappointing that you have chosen to take this low road rather than owning your error.

I admitted nothing more then what I agree with here. In fact as you have so dishonestly ignored, all I am saying and have said all along, is that the fool that originally picked up Arfa on his mention of photon being energy, was being pedantic.

Just to be clear, this is you calling exchemist a fool - or perhaps me, or perhaps both of us - and clearly neither one of us is a fool.

What irks you, I know, is that we were right and you were wrong, and you apparently aren't big enough to admit it. So now it's personal insults, apparently. How disappointing.

I have not changed that view, and the fact that I have given links supporting the that, particularly https://www.quora.com/If-it-is-true...nergy-must-all-energy-be-contained-in-photons, among many others, show I am spot on.

I think that quote - or something similar from quora - was addressed directly in the relevant thread. All the repetition shows is that you're stubborn and unable to address the objections that were raised against your position, so you ignore those and simply repost references and opinions that have already been discussed, like a troll.

My reasons for not being here or elsewhere, is that I have been out of the country and off the grid, so to speak...

Your movements are your own business, and nobody is requiring you to be here any more than you want to.

Gee James, you just recently pinned me for far less, and you let this go? Or didn't you see it?

No such post was reported by you, or anybody else.

Also, your links throughout this latest post of yours point to random posts that do not even contain the content you claim to be linking to. Without searching through posts (which I have no intention of doing for you), there's no way to verify that you're even quoting accurately.

On another topic, when you're here calling people fools who have dull minds, it's a bit rich for you to complain about your targets telling you to fuck off, don't you think?

OK James, some advice....Firstly try posting without ridicule.

When you make yourself look ridiculous, you ought to expect people to ridicule you, at least a little. My version of ridicule usually is the textual equivalent of a raised eyebrow, although I do have a tendency to match the tone of my correspondents when they decide to get nasty about things, like you have.

I mean as a mod, you should be out setting an example don't you think?

For somebody who says he respects science and the scientific method, shouldn't you be setting an example about being willing to alter your views in the light of new information?

And secondly James, no I aint in any way shape or form a sexist as you cowardly labeled me in another thread.

Cowardly?

If I said you were sexist, I expect I would have backed up that statement with solid evidence drawn from your own statements, at the very least. Cowardly would have been to ignore your sexism and let it go by without comment, just for the sake of a quiet life.

But you haven't linked to anything specific, so it's hard to even know what you're talking about. Which thread? Which posts? Who knows? It sounds like some old grudge you've held onto.

By the same token, I am not entirely politically correct, and don't simply assume some new drive or aspect that governments and/or society would like to ram down my throat.

It sounds to me like you know better, but rather than apologising or changing your position, again you've decided to double down and post weak excuses for what, I imagine, must have been sexist views that you expressed somewhere or other.

ps: On the thread you closed you kept asking if energy is stuff. No, of course it is not stuff, at least not stuff you can put in a bucket!

Good that you've realised that. Now, considering that you can put photons in a bucket, what does that tell you? Something to think about while you're considering your next knee-jerk angry outburst.

 

[Seattle]

lol Someone, pass the popcorn.

Here you go Wegs, lightly salted with butter...

 

[wegs]

Here you go Wegs, lightly salted with butter...

Merci beaucoup

 

[James R]

paddoboy:

Here's an example of how it should be done:

Janus58:

Shouldn't that be "slightly less"?

No. sea water water, being more dense than fresh water means the ice will float "higher" or displace a smaller volume of sea water than it would if floating in fresh water (This is an effect ships leaving the ocean and entering fresh water rivers need to be aware of. Going from salt to fresh water causes its draft to increase and the ship to sit deeper in the water. ) Fresh water ice floating in fresh water displaces a volume of water equal to the volume of water it will turn into. Fresh water ice floating in sea water displaces a smaller volume of sea water, but produces the same volume of water when it melts.

Janus58:

Thanks. You're correct. My mistake.

 

[exchemist]

I'm going to assume that this rant thread is mostly addressed to me or, at least, I'll respond to the bits that address me by name. Really, paddoboy, aren't you getting too old to be throwing tantrums like this?


Okay. You're on the record as not retracting your silly claim that photons are energy.

That's fine. We're all clear on that. It's your prerogative if you want to continue to believe an absurdity, in spite of having your ongoing error carefully explained to you. The thread in question is closed now, anyway. Unless you have something new to add on the topic - and it doesn't look like you do - we're done with that, aren't we?


Childish insults, eh? Is that going to be how you roll from now on, or is it just for this thread? Really, paddoboy, you're making a nasty spectacle of yourself. Surely you're better than this? How disappointing that you have chosen to take this low road rather than owning your error.


Just to be clear, this is you calling exchemist a fool - or perhaps me, or perhaps both of us - and clearly neither one of us is a fool.

What irks you, I know, is that we were right and you were wrong, and you apparently aren't big enough to admit it. So now it's personal insults, apparently. How disappointing.


I think that quote - or something similar from quora - was addressed directly in the relevant thread. All the repetition shows is that you're stubborn and unable to address the objections that were raised against your position, so you ignore those and simply repost references and opinions that have already been discussed, like a troll.


Your movements are your own business, and nobody is requiring you to be here any more than you want to.


No such post was reported by you, or anybody else.

Also, your links throughout this latest post of yours point to random posts that do not even contain the content you claim to be linking to. Without searching through posts (which I have no intention of doing for you), there's no way to verify that you're even quoting accurately.

On another topic, when you're here calling people fools who have dull minds, it's a bit rich for you to complain about your targets telling you to fuck off, don't you think?


When you make yourself look ridiculous, you ought to expect people to ridicule you, at least a little. My version of ridicule usually is the textual equivalent of a raised eyebrow, although I do have a tendency to match the tone of my correspondents when they decide to get nasty about things, like you have.


For somebody who says he respects science and the scientific method, shouldn't you be setting an example about being willing to alter your views in the light of new information?


Cowardly?

If I said you were sexist, I expect I would have backed up that statement with solid evidence drawn from your own statements, at the very least. Cowardly would have been to ignore your sexism and let it go by without comment, just for the sake of a quiet life.

But you haven't linked to anything specific, so it's hard to even know what you're talking about. Which thread? Which posts? Who knows? It sounds like some old grudge you've held onto.


It sounds to me like you know better, but rather than apologising or changing your position, again you've decided to double down and post weak excuses for what, I imagine, must have been sexist views that you expressed somewhere or other.


Good that you've realised that. Now, considering that you can put photons in a bucket, what does that tell you? Something to think about while you're considering your next knee-jerk angry outburst.

Just for the sake of good order (and just in case it prompts more amusing barking noises from paddo - and more popcorn munching noises from Wegs ):
- I believe it wasOrigin that first picked Arfa up on his error, and
- I told Arfa to fuck off. I finally got exasperated with him when instead of answering a direct question from you he introduced some stupid red herring about QM operators or something. (I can't be bothered to look up the details). That was the point at which I concluded he was just trolling.

 

[James R]

Just for the sake of good order (and just in case it prompts more amusing barking noises from paddo - and more popcorn munching noises from Wegs ):
- I believe it wasOrigin that first picked Arfa up on his error, and
- I told Arfa to fuck off. I finally got exasperated with him when instead of answering a direct question from you he introduced some stupid red herring about QM operators or something. (I can't be bothered to look up the details). That was the point at which I concluded he was just trolling.

I eventually closed the thread due to arfa's trolling, so obviously I don't think you were completely off the mark there.

Pass the popcorn. I'm expecting another blast.

 

[exchemist]

I eventually closed the thread due to arfa's trolling, so obviously I don't think you were completely off the mark there.

Pass the popcorn. I'm expecting another blast.

 

[paddoboy]

I'm going to assume that this rant thread is mostly addressed to me or, at least, I'll respond to the bits that address me by name. Really, paddoboy, aren't you getting too old to be throwing tantrums like this?

Assume what you like Jamesy, this will be my last post for a while anyway, as I'm flying out again today and will be off the grid for a while. My tantrums as you put it are not tantrums, simply correcting you dishonest obtuse approach to certain people that don't strictly align with your political and/or social agenda...much like MR.

Okay. You're on the record as not retracting your silly claim that photons are energy.

That's fine. We're all clear on that. It's your prerogative if you want to continue to believe an absurdity, in spite of having your ongoing error carefully explained to you. The thread in question is closed now, anyway. Unless you have something new to add on the topic - and it doesn't look like you do - we're done with that, aren't we?

What claim is that James? C'mon now make yourself clear. Let me clear it up for you instead, as you will only get it wrong anyway to support that ego of yours and your credibility which I have brought into question. Whether someone says a photon is a packet of energy, or an energetic particle, is OK with me, and OK with a whole heap of reputable links I have given supporting that aspect, and which you have tried to invalidate with many questionable silly analogies.

Childish insults, eh? Is that going to be how you roll from now on, or is it just for this thread? Really, paddoboy, you're making a nasty spectacle of yourself. Surely you're better than this? How disappointing that you have chosen to take this low road rather than owning your error.


Just to be clear, this is you calling exchemist a fool - or perhaps me, or perhaps both of us - and clearly neither one of us is a fool.

Pot, kettle black, if ever that adage was needed!! At least miss goody two shoes seems to have straightened you up somewhat in his use of his "fuck you" remark, and the fact that it [1[ did occur, and [2] was directed at someone else.

No such post was reported by you, or anybody else.

Gee James are you now saying that anyone can say and infer whatever they like, and its OK with you, as long as it isn't reported? Your job as a mod is to I would think, police reasonable standards of conversation and language irrespective of reports. Or are you saying that you didn't see that "fuck you"remark? I mean this was in a thread where you were hypo active in, and you are saying you didn't see it...telling lies makes little baby Jesus cry James

What irks you, I know, is that we were right and you were wrong, and you apparently aren't big enough to admit it. So now it's personal insults, apparently. How disappointing.

Well well, there's that pot calling the kettle black again! And another reminder I am and was denying nothing other the saying it is a pedantic issue and which I supported many times from many reputable links.

I think that quote - or something similar from quora - was addressed directly in the relevant thread. All the repetition shows is that you're stubborn and unable to address the objections that were raised against your position, so you ignore those and simply repost references and opinions that have already been discussed, like a troll.

And while you keep trying to pull the wool over people's eyes with questionable silly 'bucket"and "wave"analogies, I'll keep posting those reputable links.
I suggest you start conducting yourself as a reputable mod should and go after the real trolls, as Kittamaru did, while you sat on your hands while he did his job. The three brothers from India, The God, Rajish, and the other fool whose name I have forgotten were all rightly and finally banned not by you, but by Kittamaru.

Your movements are your own business, and nobody is requiring you to be here any more than you want to.

Certainly, just as your own movements are your business, but your obtuseness fools no one. My comment on my absence and the reasons for it, was due to the childish antics by yourself and little miss goody two shoes, in inferring that I had "run away"or was in someway afraid to comment further. Got it James?

Also, your links throughout this latest post of yours point to random posts that do not even contain the content you claim to be linking to. Without searching through posts (which I have no intention of doing for you), there's no way to verify that you're even quoting accurately.

Thankfully little miss goody two shoes seems to have straightened you out on that. Unlike you James, I don't lie with regards to what I claim, unlike you.

On another topic, when you're here calling people fools who have dull minds, it's a bit rich for you to complain about your targets telling you to fuck off, don't you think?

Again, while you being drastically wrong in who was telling who to fuck off, my motive in raising that was to illustrate your incompetent and biased moderating obviously.

When you make yourself look ridiculous, you ought to expect people to ridicule you, at least a little. My version of ridicule usually is the textual equivalent of a raised eyebrow, although I do have a tendency to match the tone of my correspondents when they decide to get nasty about things, like you have.

I have no ego to protect James, nor do I have an agenda, other then the scientific method.

For somebody who says he respects science and the scientific method, shouldn't you be setting an example about being willing to alter your views in the light of new information?

What new information?
This?

Good that you've realised that. Now, considering that you can put photons in a bucket, what does that tell you? Something to think about while you're considering your next knee-jerk angry outburst.

Putting a photon in a bucket?? That would entail it being at rest I suggest, which even you should know is not possible.

Cowardly?
If I said you were sexist, I expect I would have backed up that statement with solid evidence drawn from your own statements, at the very least. Cowardly would have been to ignore your sexism and let it go by without comment, just for the sake of a quiet life.
But you haven't linked to anything specific, so it's hard to even know what you're talking about. Which thread? Which posts? Who knows? It sounds like some old grudge you've held onto.

I may forgive James, but I rarely forget. The thread was the one where I commented on women making false accusations against men. But out of compassion I dropped out and stopped commenting. Got it now James? By the way, the bone of contention in that thread [in addressing females as love etc] has been re enforced many many times since, with many females of various ages addressing me as love, and even sweety...bank staff, insurance people, medicare staff and club secretary's. Perhaps you as an Aussie, need to contemplate how us Aussies sometimes address each other as you old bastard etc. You know what I mean. The manner, the attitude and the environment in which such takes place, denotes the intentions of such remarks. So, no, I'm most definitely not sexist, racist, a chauvinist pig or anything similar.

It sounds to me like you know better, but rather than apologising or changing your position, again you've decided to double down and post weak excuses for what, I imagine, must have been sexist views that you expressed somewhere or other.

Nup, just telling it like it is. Sometimes political correctness is beyond any sensibility and reason, and simply to give certain individuals a warm inner glow, much as religious people need.

Now James, once again, I'm flying out soon, so the final say is your's. Make the best of it!! How long will I begone? Depends on how long before you start missing me!!! No just joking James...not sure, depends on this project , could be 3 or 4 months, might be in a month. My name may even go up in lights!!! That's another joke James!
The only reason I returned was to see the mighty Roosters win back to back GF's. It's called sport James.

ps: Don't be too hard on me, even if it is to entertain the two giggling miss goody two shoes.

 

[wegs]

How dare you speak of me like that!?

*giggle*

 

[DaveC426913]

\
Putting a photon in a bucket?? That would entail it being at rest I suggest, which even you should know is not possible.

Put a lid on it, and mirror the inside. Photons will bounce around in there - moving at c - for an indeterminate duration.

 

[James R]

paddoboy:

More of the same from you. Ho hum. Not unexpected, though.

Assume what you like Jamesy, this will be my last post for a while anyway, as I'm flying out again today and will be off the grid for a while.

I sincerely hope you are able to relax and chill out during your time away. You seem a little stressed and hyper-vigilant right now. The time away might do you good. Also, some more time away from sciforums just might allow time for you to take a step back and get some perspective. Here's hoping.

My tantrums as you put it are not tantrums...

It's not really for you to say, is it? Let's just say you're not presenting your best face to the world at the moment.

, simply correcting you dishonest obtuse approach to certain people that don't strictly align with your political and/or social agenda...much like MR.

I'm sure that one of these days somebody is going to accuse me of dishonesty and actually try to provide some evidence to back up their claim. Not today, though.

As for my "political and social agenda", what would that be, exactly? Try to be nice to people, respect difference, advocate for equal rights and opportunities for all, don't turn a blind eye to "-isms" ... that kind of offensive, radical stuff? And my "agenda" with respect to science education - try to pass on the benefit of some of my knowledge to others, while taking the opportunity to learn new things myself - that kind of radical evil agenda? Are those the kinds of things you're whining about? Or are you more concerned about my unwillingness to tolerate fools and people who post in bad faith, beyond a certain point of giving them the benefit of the doubt?

What claim is that James? C'mon now make yourself clear.

I did. It's right there in the very paragraph you quoted. Didn't you read it before jerking your knee?

Let me clear it up for you instead, as you will only get it wrong anyway to support that ego of yours and your credibility which I have brought into question. Whether someone says a photon is a packet of energy, or an energetic particle, is OK with me, and OK with a whole heap of reputable links I have given supporting that aspect, and which you have tried to invalidate with many questionable silly analogies.

A photon is not a packet of energy. A photon is not energy. You don't get any righter when you repeat a silly claim, like I said.

No "reputable link" you have posted has brought anything I have written on that topic into question. In fact, the more reputable the links are, the more they support my position, as was shown a number of times in the closed thread, with reference to specific examples.

Gee James are you now saying that anyone can say and infer whatever they like, and its OK with you, as long as it isn't reported?

You know we have a set of published posting guidelines. If you want to know our attitude to profanity and "curse words", or whatever you want to call them, it's right there in black and white in the published policy.

You will find, if you read the posting guidelines, that it is not the case that anyone can say whatever they like here. Go and read them. Inform yourself. It's about time you did that. You've been here how many years now?

Your job as a mod is to I would think, police reasonable standards of conversation and language irrespective of reports.

Ah. Reasonable standards, eh?

On the one hand, you want a hard-line approach taken to exchemist's reasonable, in-context, "fuck you" to arfa, but on the other hand you want a softly softly approach when you call exchemist a fool, or you modify my user name in an attempt to infantilise me, or you assert that I have a dull mind. It's a double or multiple standard you want - one for you, one for your mates, one for people you dislike, and one for everybody else. You're far from alone in that, I assure you.

Or are you saying that you didn't see that "fuck you"remark?

No. I recall seeing it. I wasn't sure which thread it was in. It was delivered in the cut and thrust of a debate. The recipient didn't take issue with it at the time, and nobody else complained either. Most likely, the more level headed readers who saw it decided that, in the circumstances, it was fair comment.

And another reminder I am and was denying nothing other the saying it is a pedantic issue and which I supported many times from many reputable links.

Like I said very early on in that conversation, it can be considered pedantic to correct somebody's error on a relatively minor point that might not affect their ability to function effectively in the longer term, and that's fair comment. However, an error is an error, and calling somebody pedantic for pointing out the error doesn't change the fact that when you're wrong, you're wrong.

I think part of your problem is that you view somebody questioning or contradicting you as if they are attacking your personal character. That gets you stuck in a rut where you're unable to admit to errors or to change your mind once you've staked out a position on a topic. Your only option, as you see it, is to double down on the stupid and hope you can bluff your way through with nobody noticing. And that, in case you're wondering, is a comment on your personal character.

I suggest you start conducting yourself as a reputable mod should and go after the real trolls, as Kittamaru did, while you sat on your hands while he did his job. The three brothers from India, The God, Rajish, and the other fool whose name I have forgotten were all rightly and finally banned not by you, but by Kittamaru.

With respect, you're clueless about the full story with Kittamaru and going after real trolls. I'm not even going to start with that.

Thankfully little miss goody two shoes seems to have straightened you out on that.

I'm not even sure who you're referring to with that playground name-calling. Also, it sounds like you think being good is a bad thing, or something. Why is that? Were you the sort of child who picked on kids you perceived were the "teacher's pet" or something? Were you a bully at school, paddoboy?

You know, at the end of the day, starting this kind of thread and ranting on and on, as you are, ends up saying way more about you than it does about any ostensible "issues" you might have with me, or with moderators in general, or with people correcting your bad science. How long do you think it will be before you recognise that you're not on a winning wicket when you throw a hissy fit like this one, right from the start?

 

[James R]

(continued... don't worry, there's not much more...)

Unlike you James, I don't lie with regards to what I claim, unlike you.

Like I said, one of these days somebody will at least try to back up one of these accusations that I habitually tell lies. But not today.

I have no ego to protect James, nor do I have an agenda, other then the scientific method.

Oh, I can tell. I'm sure it's clear to everybody reading this that your ego is not in play at all.

Keep digging that hole!

Putting a photon in a bucket?? That would entail it being at rest I suggest, which even you should know is not possible.

A practical example would be a laser cavity: mirrors at both ends, light bounces back and forth between them.

Point being (again) that there is no energy "stuff" in that cavity. What's in there is photons. Sure, the photons have an associated energy, but when you put photons in a cavity you're not bottling energy, you're bottling light.

Again, this is not a new point. You've been walked though it over and over again. You can't pretend you still don't get it.

I may forgive James, but I rarely forget. The thread was the one where I commented on women making false accusations against men. But out of compassion I dropped out and stopped commenting.Got it now James? By the way, the bone of contention in that thread [in addressing females as love etc] has been re enforced many many times since, with many females of various ages addressing me as love, and even sweety...bank staff, insurance people, medicare staff and club secretary's. Perhaps you as an Aussie, need to contemplate how us Aussies sometimes address each other as you old bastard etc. You know what I mean. The manner, the attitude and the environment in which such takes place, denotes the intentions of such remarks. So, no, I'm most definitely not sexist, racist, a chauvinist pig or anything similar.

Really? You want to go there again? I would have thought you'd have developed at least a little shame after your appalling showing in that thread. It's a good thing you didn't link to it, or you'd potentially be inviting a whole new batch of readers to witness your sexist attitudes first-hand.

If you really want to continue with that thread, we can do it there. I'm sure I can find the link. Just say the word - or better yet, continue to post in the thread. But here's my advice: you came out of that thread looking far worse than you're looking even in the current thread. If I were you, I'd want to take a good hard look at myself and disown my past behaviour, after that. But I'm not you, so you'll do what you'll do.

Sometimes political correctness is beyond any sensibility and reason, and simply to give certain individuals a warm inner glow, much as religious people need.

Like I said, we can discuss the ins and outs of your sexist attitudes elsewhere, if you really feel the need. I don't intend to get back into that here, if for no other reason than that it's likely to be an unpleasant and bruising experience for you. You haven't got over the last time yet, so please think carefully before you decide to put yourself through that again.

Now James, once again, I'm flying out soon, so the final say is your's. Make the best of it!!

Thanks! I think I've had it, unless you have anything to add.

All the best for your trip abroad. I hope you do some good over there. But if you get a chance while you're away, take some time to reflect. Unwind. Relax. Hopefully, gain some perspective. We'll still be here when you get back (as far as I know).

 

[billvon]

Let me clear it up for you instead, . . .I'll keep posting those reputable links. . . Unlike you James, I don't lie with regards to what I claim, unlike you. . . . my motive in raising that was to illustrate your incompetent and biased moderating obviously.

Followed by:

I have no ego to protect James, nor do I have an agenda, other then the scientific method.

Funniest thing I have read on here in months.

"I am an intelligent purveyor of reputable links, and am refreshingly honest - and I only have the best motives. Oh, and I have no ego. I am merely a selfless, modest hero of the scientific method."

 

[exchemist]

Put a lid on it.......

My thoughts exactly!

 

[exchemist]

Followed by:

Funniest thing I have read on here in months.

"I am an intelligent purveyor of reputable links, and am refreshingly honest - and I only have the best motives. Oh, and I have no ego. I am merely a selfless, modest hero of the scientific method."

.....renowned for my calm and dispassionate focus on only the science.....