our science replaced by their journalism

hello,

I have figured out a number of awkward magnetic effects. I don't want
to bother anyone with the details. I was just curious why people
refuse to even look at perpetual motion. Sure you can claim nothing of
the kind exists. Scientifically you have not begun to look in favor of
this journalism. You have nothing to back up this claim as non of you
have ever bothered to look into the topic in favor there of.

You guys are that what we call scientists. I am not, but I am the one
looking into the science while you are all ignoring it? Every last one
of you. There are practically no exceptions.

My question is not that of "perpetual motion real or nut?"

I would like to know at what stage of the analysis the actual data is
allowed into this system. Then if you go as far as to disallow the
actual data to be reviewed, how can you still continue to pretend it
is science?

not looking at data = journalism

looking at data = science

You want to argue I'm wrong about that? I would be happy to hear it.

I know every last one of you likes to think the accumulated knowledge
I have acquired over the years is equal to zero. This is quite
insulting but it most certainly doesn't have anything scientific to
it, such review only describes you.

I spend my time reading the work of thousands. Your ignorance based
refutation of this is worthy of laughing in your face. You don't know
what I read, where I read it, who wrote it AND what it was about. But
now you want to pretend you are the expert. You are experts at Gonzo
journalism. Are you trying to make me laugh or something?

I want to know what happened to science in general. Why did it have to
die? Who killed it? Why have non of you ever looked at the hard real
world facts? Why are you all ignorant bitches all of the time? The
approach scores lots of points as fascism. Is there anyone here who
wants to pretend it is scientific?

Can one of you throw me a banana from your tree of dogma?

Don't give me the imaginary crap about all of those devices that
didn't work. You haven't looked at any of them. Claiming they do not
work should be done after proving it scientifically. With hard data
that is.

you have zero evidence, I on the other hand have abundant evidence of
your lack of reviewing all of the devices. It is so easy to prove how
you all behaved like freaks and wackos over the topic I'm not even
going to bother. You know what I'm talking about.

I claim you are the scientists.

Now I want to know if it's science or if it journalism or if the
question is unreasonable.

thanks,

____
http://compuball.com/Inquisition/AynRand/galtspeech_pmark_broken.htm
http://www.storyofstuff.com/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... Should the Fed's stop mention of SETI in science books also? ... > And you don't want to bother yourself with finding out what other scientists ... >>> and how to avoid false positives? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: our science replaced by their journalism
    ... to bother anyone with the details. ... this journalism. ... You guys are that what we call scientists. ... looking into the science while you are all ignoring it? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Columnist: What we need here is a bias in favour of truth
    ... "Journalism itself is a science, ... science that scientists say is science." ... Great Global Warming Swindle into high school classrooms to "balance" Al ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: our science replaced by their journalism
    ... to bother anyone with the details. ... You are right, "journalism" often replaces thought. ... But in terms of perpetual motion, which is a silly buzz phrase, you ... Perpetual motion research use to be the holy grail of science. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Those crass Creationists
    ... "An intellectually honest approach would then be to denounce modern science ... Instead of reading bad journalism, ... scientists have overlooked. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)