Re: Define a clock

From: AllYou! (idaman_at_conversent.net)
Date: 10/26/04 

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:04:09 -0400

"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:Bdrfd.170593$a85.112575@fed1read04...
> AllYou! wrote:
> > "jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:U47fd.54792$UA.33606@lakeread08...
> >
> >>AllYou! wrote:
> >>
> >>>"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >
> > news:FKsed.48763$UA.1171@lakeread08...
> >
> >>>>Again with the circular claim. I've not given you a circular
definiton
> >>>>of time.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Then it's *time* you did.
> >>>What is time?
> >>>What is a clock?
> >>>
> >>
> >>It's finally dawning on me that you're just trolling, and if that's the
> >>case FuckYou!. If not have a nice day.
> >
> >
> > Then you're an idiot. I've addressed every single thing you've thrown
at
> > me. I've addressed every single comment and every assertion. Boneheads
> > like you are so narrow minded that you don't even recognize what the
> > argument is. You're willing to engage in a discussion of what time is
as
> > long as I accept as irrefutable fact that my argument is incorrect.
> >
> > I argue that it's distance and velocity which are fundamental and time
which
> > is simply the result of man's combining of them to produce a concept we
call
> > time, and you're willing to engage in that discussions long as I go
along
> > with your assertion that it's indisputable that in order to know a
velocity,
> > we must first know the value of time and distance.
> >
> > But that's the debate, dickhead. I'm not going to assert that time is
just
> > the comparisons of motion but then accept as indisputable your notion
that
> > time is fundamental. That's shear idiocy.
> >
> > Why not debate the issue on a reasonable basis? Why not engage with
logic
> > and reason? I've given you a very well reasoned and detailed rationale
as
> > to how we came to this misconception of time and what it really is. The
> > only thing you keep coming back with, essentially, is that I'm wrong.
Fine.
> > But you've hardly addressed a single argument I've made without
including
> > somewhere in your response the very *premise* that my argument is wrong.
> > That's not a debate. That's not argument. That's just an insistence
that I
> > must acquiesce or else "***-You".
> >
> > How silly is that? Is that what passes for discussion here? Is that
what
> > passes for debate in the scientific community?
> >
> > I know what it is. While your avocation may be physics, mine is
physiology.
> > The propensity of the so-called experts in this NG to vitriol in the
face of
> > reason which they cannot dispute stems from the fact that these
so-called
> > experts, like you, visit these NGs to show how much they know. On the
> > surface, they do so to teach, but in this case, they're driven to teach
by
> > the need to show how smart they are. And they're driven to show how
smart
> > they are by their fear that they are not. They are so driven by their
own
> > feelings of incompetence. They need the constant reassurance of their
peers
> > and they need to know that there are so many lesser qualified than they.
> > It's classic.
> >
> > The trouble comes when they're faced with an argument they cannot
address.
> > The trouble comes when someone who's clearly not as learned as they are
> > proposes something which they believe to be incorrect but then are
surprised
> > to learn that they cannot explain why that is. They cannot adequately
> > respond to reason and logic. That's when all the fear and all the angst
> > which is driven by feelings of inadequacy surface and the inevitable
> > response is something akin to "***-You".
> >
> > Just look at a couple of the other morons here. Moortel and Hobba have
> > actually stalked me whenever I engage with others specifically in an
attempt
> > to convince others that I'm just a crank and a troll. Ask yourself, why
is
> > that? Why are they so eager to condemn me? In the beginning, I asked
them
> > repeatedly to just leave me alone. If they believed that I was a troll,
> > then ignore me. But did they? Despite that, not only did they continue
to
> > stalk me, but when I would not go away, they hurled the most vile and
> > disgusting insults at me they could think of.
> >
> > And why? Why not just go away? For the same reason you had to respond
to
> > me the way that you did. Because they're afraid. Because those
feelings of
> > inadequacy bubble to the surface and it scares them. They're humiliated
and
> > embarrassed and so they lash out.
> >
> > You know physics (maybe), but I know psychology.
> >
> > So, if you want to take a deep breath and start again, then fine. Let's
> > start from scratch. If not, that's fine by me.
> >
>
>
> It doesn't require knowing much psychology to recognize that persecution
> complex of yours.
>
> Likely you'll give it the same consideration as everything else I've
> shared with you over the past 3 weeks, but here's an article of some
> relevance.
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

Perfect. It proves my point. You'll find numerous examples of where I
openly and readily admitted my incompetence in the are of physics. I never
made any secret of that. I wanted to be sure that anyone engaging me is
conversation or debate knew exactly what they were dealing with.
Conversely, none of you were ever willing to admit that there could be any
possibility whatsoever that there might be even the slightest grain of
validity to what I was proposing.

But even that's fine. If there is not, then there is not. But what gets me
is how the three of you so quickly turn to vitriol and anger and personal
attacks just because I'm able to address and answer every issue posed to me.
I never engaged any of you in any conversation under false pretenses. I
never claimed to be anything I was not. In fact, I did just the opposite.
Each of you had the chance to simply ignore me.

So thanks for providing the link to that article. It proves my point. It
proves that the three of you are very much afraid of being discovered and
that fear leads to animosity and the need to destroy the source of that
which exposes you incompetence.

Quantcast