That's pretty much your intellectual contribution. Resting your case on an error of grammar.
Why many scientists are so ignorant
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
- Status
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
It was a quote from Russ. Take it up with him.
I have to take issue with that: The way you cut the quote and omitted the ellipsis is misleading because without the context, "your "ignorant"" almost implies an improper use of the word "your" as in "you are ignorant" or "you're ignorant" (which was your intent), which is just so not me -- again, that's you. Your misuse of "your" is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me, and another issue of yours you're repeatedly doing.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I wasn't making a statement. I was quoting your own words. Did you see the quotation marks? Big hint there.
Incorrectly. and despite it only being two words, misreading it (though as I said, it would have helped with the context...). Wow.
Bells
Staff member
Mod Note
What's that saying about glass houses?
This thread's topic would have been a very interesting discussion if it had been allowed to continue. Sadly MR, you seem intent on tanking your own thread for reasons known only to yourself.
Keep in mind that when you report a post, we review the whole thread. This is where the whole spiel about glass houses enters the fray. And the glass house you reside in is very flimsy, MR.
And can I just say, misrepresenting someone's quote in the manner that you have and cutting out 99% of his post to come out with two words to convey a different meaning is a disgusting move. It is inherently dishonest.
You have also appeared to have misrepresented the very basis of the article in the OP and have instead attempted to use it for your own anti-science crusade. And it is ridiculous. As I said, this would have otherwise been a very interesting discussion about the role philosophy plays in science (which is the crux of the article you linked in your OP) and how one can benefit the other. You deliberately chose to ignore that and misrepresent it.
This thread is closed, not because of the subject of the thread and the many of us who worked hard to try to salvage it and to discuss it in an adult manner and discuss the article in the OP. The fault of its closure rests solely on your shoulders, MR. You tanked the thread deliberately.
What's that saying about glass houses?
This thread's topic would have been a very interesting discussion if it had been allowed to continue. Sadly MR, you seem intent on tanking your own thread for reasons known only to yourself.
Keep in mind that when you report a post, we review the whole thread. This is where the whole spiel about glass houses enters the fray. And the glass house you reside in is very flimsy, MR.
And can I just say, misrepresenting someone's quote in the manner that you have and cutting out 99% of his post to come out with two words to convey a different meaning is a disgusting move. It is inherently dishonest.
You have also appeared to have misrepresented the very basis of the article in the OP and have instead attempted to use it for your own anti-science crusade. And it is ridiculous. As I said, this would have otherwise been a very interesting discussion about the role philosophy plays in science (which is the crux of the article you linked in your OP) and how one can benefit the other. You deliberately chose to ignore that and misrepresent it.
This thread is closed, not because of the subject of the thread and the many of us who worked hard to try to salvage it and to discuss it in an adult manner and discuss the article in the OP. The fault of its closure rests solely on your shoulders, MR. You tanked the thread deliberately.
- Status