What came first: the chicken or the egg?

Status
Not open for further replies.
valich said:
Given that as a fact, can you offer any "constructive" suggestions as to how I can be more efficient at learning science?
.
I have offered you objective advice on a number of occassions. You chose not to accept it, preferring, it seems, to take the subjective view that since I had called you a snivelling little weasel in adjacent posts this must somehow devalue the objectivity of the advice.

Once again you demonstrate your inability to, as Spurious so elegantly put it, connect two dots. The depth of contempt I feel for you in no manner effects the objectivity of the advice I offer. I am genetically and environmentally presdisposed to offer the soundest advice I can, even when I think the recipient is despicable. I would find it practically impossible to do otherwise.

You can, however, simply choose to ignore me and the advice, and continue on your merry way with less understanding of what science is than does a squahed, fermenting guava fruit.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
It's not a secret that I have a PhD. Just as it isn't a secret that you are a moron.

I think it is about time you stop raping science with your lack of knowledge and your arrogant psychological make-up which prevents you from seeing the obvious. You know shit about science. There isn't a single real scientist that gives you an ounce of credit. They all despise your methods and your vulgarities regarding the essence of science: the fact that you rape science in every single post you make but you project the aura you are the defender of science.

You are in fact the worst kind of person to defend science imaginable. You cannot connect two dots. You cannot see simple logic. You cannot see the value of simple sets of data. You are not capable of any scientific reasoning without falling into a pit of stupidity with every other thought you have.

But still you are covinced you know science. The fact that actual scientists (all of them) think you are wrong in almost everything you say will not deter you. You are worse that a religious nut. At least they don't hide behind the facade of science.

You are just fucking sad.

And what do you do when someone corrects again a stupidity. You question their scienfic merits. While the actual identity of this person is not a secret and his actual PhD has been linked in the past on this forum, as have some of his papers. You question a fact again.

You are a religious nut. You are a new breed of scientologist except that you are all alone and nobody has invented your church yet. A lonley git who thinks he knows the truth. You can't get anymore sad than that. If you weren't so annoying you would have my sympathies. But as it is I will just say with my PhD: have a lobotomy. You can't get much worse than this.
Your brain’s fixation with and reliance on the use of vulgarity and condescending belittlement towards others is indicative of immaturity and a lack of any educational background. We just don’t talk that way in the scientific community or in higher education. In psychological terms, the use of vulgarity shows a spontaneous outburst of emotional hostility and a drifting away from rational intellectual thought.

That you have a Ph.D. is just a blatant lie: you are a fake and a phony and your filthy manner of speaking is a disgrace to the scientific community.

There is not one instance that I can recall where you have ever admitted your mistakes. When I know that I am wrong, I admit it, but I don’t rush to an incorrect conclusion without further research or without gaining a full understanding. A perfect example of your biased stubbornness and refusal to admit error is with your recent thread “New genus of monkeys discovered.” When I posted an important related break-through reference to a newly found transitional species that resembled an ape more than a chimp, your immediately reply was to call it “dirty” (“Jesus fuck. Apes! It’s not a monkey! It’s a filthy ape!”). Later, you then accused me of posting “spam” (“stop polluting threads. What's the point of quoting random articles in a science thread. It's fucking impolite and pointless), even though the source was a direct quotation from the author’s of the journal Nature (Toumai, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, 6-7 mya, possibly the “oldest known hominid” http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/ap_050406_chad_bones.html). Perhaps you have some type of neurotic bias towards monkeys because that is what you call yourself? Just a suggestion.

Almost all sciforum users do not have costly membership to access these journals directly. Posting a link to a scientist’s direct quotation that can be accessed for free is doing a service to the public and to the users on these forums. Direct quotes from author’s of peer reviewed articles who are out there in the field at the forefront of science and technology are not spam. If you cannot understand this through my use of rational scientific terminology and unbiased objective logical thought, then perhaps you can understand it through the use of your own manner of wording: you are now being a “dumbfuck,” and to be consistent with your own analyses and methodology, in this example you need to admit this. Inconsistency is also a sign of immaturity and unintelligence - lack of logical thought, not to mention lack of etiquette, lack of scientific protocol, and the exposure of your blatant obscene rudeness and profanity to the general public on a public forum.
 
spurious:

reported to the moderators for unethical behaviour.

Don't dish it out if you're not willing to get it back.
---------

The tone of this thread has descended to a level where there's no reason to keep it open.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top