Re: Bad ethics
From: don findlay (don_at_tower.net.au)
Date: 07/23/04
- Previous message: Gary: "Re: Nobody seems to use the "hydrology" ng - SANDPOINT WELL"
- In reply to: Carsten Troelsgaard: "Re: Bad ethics"
- Next in thread: Carsten Troelsgaard: "Re: Bad ethics"
- Reply: Carsten Troelsgaard: "Re: Bad ethics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 22 Jul 2004 19:01:45 -0700
"Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk> wrote in message news:<40ffe788$0$230$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>...
> > > You are still leaving out any explanation to why you start this thread
> by
> > > grossly misquoting me.
> > >
> > > And you obviously havn't got the faintest clue as to what I believe in.
> >
> > I think what Gerald is saying is
>
> big snip
>
> What's that got to do with the headline of this thread and my obviously
> important part in it?
"Bad ethics". Takes real dedication. Not to be confused with
misunderstanding what someone is saying. Half the time I don't even
know what *I'M* saying, much less what (say) you or Gerald is
saying, and it takes someone else's 'rephrasal' to clarify the issue
(e.g., 'coriolis'). That rephrasal should be viewed as a help, not a
hindrance. If I were to rely on *your* comments on what *I'm*
saying, without me setting you right, where *would* the World be?
In the issue to hand, the really dedicated ones are those remaining
silent, because they know the pitfalls they face if they engage.
Because it suits them to stay silent, or weasel and spin. That (in
the context of this newsgroup) is what I call bad ethics,
...collusion by silence when somebody blows the whistle on 'WMD's' -
or plate tectonics ("the pinnacle of achievement of the 20th Century
in the Earth Sciences"), ..or Astronomy as Oriel would have it, ..or
Physics as Dennis McCarthy would have it. I don't think Gerald falls
in that category somehow.
So, gerrorf your high horse, Carsten. OK you're in the Bear Pit
Cantina, sure, ....but leave your hip iron with Angelina by the door.
Oriel's spelling it out what your saying. Set him right if he's got
it wrong.
About Coriolis, ...it is and it isn't, depending on point of view.
It's not exactly the way I think of it, but I wish you would stop
talking about 'force', and consider it 'effect' in the first instance
at least. Talk about forces later. I'm still trying to work out this
bloody transform thing and nobody's giving any help. Keep your eye on
the ball more, and less on the ego - the great Big ...Big ..Big .Big
BigBig bigbigbigbigbigbig hindrance to scientific communication there
ever was, ever is, and unfortunately ever will be, ...such is the
*HUGELY* 'objective' nature of the BEAST.
(Moderator)
- Previous message: Gary: "Re: Nobody seems to use the "hydrology" ng - SANDPOINT WELL"
- In reply to: Carsten Troelsgaard: "Re: Bad ethics"
- Next in thread: Carsten Troelsgaard: "Re: Bad ethics"
- Reply: Carsten Troelsgaard: "Re: Bad ethics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
