FONT]fedr808 #431 writes;
Original.
You have 39 posts and zero reputation. Light has more than 11,000.
If you try to attack a member with that much more credibility than for the love of G-d try and be more polite.
Quantity confers credibility? Such an illogical assumption by you immediately brands you as a lightweight from the shallow end of the gene-pool.
I am not "trying" to attack 11,000 post Lightgigantic and his facile theological humbug, I am in fact and unequivocally attacking him and his humbug, principally for the reason that I outlined in my most recent previous post which you conveniently provide and wherein I wrote.............. "You were asked a couple of simple questions that might have lead to a mutual understanding, but you prefer to maintain a juvenile mystery and pose questions in return."
Did you bother to investigate the facts that support my assertion? I was both polite and courteous and was treated with a notable lack of these estimable virtues. I invite you to note the moderate but forthright language in my posts #402, #404, #406, #408 and #410. And then note the supercilious arguments, the superficialities and irrelevancies that comprise the major content of his posts in reply.
I rejoice in advising that no love of some phantom in the sky, nor any fear of his rabid retribution, is required for me to be polite and courteous. I have a natural inclination to these which has withstood assaults that would render Job into a jibbering idiot. But even I have limited tolerance.
For all I could care you are attacking him, you could be saying 1+1=2 and light could be saying it equals three. And people would still agree with him because all they see is an arrogant newcomer trying to insult a long standing community member and friend.
I would be most interested in identifying which members would agree that 1 + 1 = 3 simply because 11,000 post Lightgigantic might assert so. I, most certainly, would not and I feel some members might be a tad miffed that you implicate them in your silly analogy. IMHO, the great majority would disagree with you.
If you do not want to be characterized as an arrogant jerk in just 39 posts I'd suggest you act more polite.
Your characterisation of me is of no account. As the petulant reaction of a "friend" of 11,000 post Lightgigantic to my characterisation of him, it is invested with selective bias and as such is of no more relevance nor merit than the revelation of which personal deodorant you prefer .
You also characterise me as a newcomer. I have been a member of SciForums for longer than both of you and have engaged in vigorous debate. I visit this sit as often as possible, for although it has a plethora of inactive memberships, I have detected some members of intellectual merit and integrity. I just bide my time but of late prefer to engage with the odd perceived ratbag on occasion as my humour guides me.
As I peruse the membership list I detect no management structure and am led to speculate as to whom it is has the authority to remonstrate with misdemeanants and correct perceived injustices. I respectfully request you provide this information if it is yours to provide.
OriginalBiggles, Prime
