A vote for total deletion of 'Room temperature supercon'...

[Betruger]

It does, but since there's no guaranteed prospects for this formula to pan out, and since there's no discussion of the full explicit details, you can't say it's news. Once there's some concrete evidence that things are definitely moving forward on verification/implementation, it should qualify for News if it still does serve purpose for Polywell.

My 2 cents.

[TallDave]

Ah, the age-old conflict between democracy and individual rights to free expression.

I've lately become enamored of prominent democratic victim Socrates' proclamation that he knew nothing, but had a love of knowledge.

Subthreading would be nice. Slashdot is very congenial to this sort of discussion.

I don't know if Johan is right, but his argument is at least interesting, if cantankerously argued. I'd really like to see his experiment someday, because if as described it does sound like it contradicts the SC orthodoxy.

[krenshala]

I think the original portion of the thread deserves to be in News, but I also can't argue with the fact that the last 10 pages or so are much closer to what should be in General.

New news related to it (actual news, not just the discussion we've been having lately) should also be in News, considering it could easily be applicable to a Polywell.

[vernes]

Stop replying to it and let it sink to the depth of the forum.
If the starter keeps bumping it, warn him to knock it off.
If starter keeps bumping it, temp-ban him.
etc, etc, etc

[chrismb]

Second thing, minor thing: the criteria - that your effort put into writing your points and rebutments is "thrown back into your face" - for "feeling" upset, that's what you might call irony given your rhetorical methods since shortly after you started using this forum.

This bugs me and shows that the discussions here fall so below any standard of critical thinking on enough occasions that this forum doesn't even think twice about this now.

Just like GIT in the thread over the way, making his 'isn't this dopey' snide remarks.

I do not get upset if someone makes valid comments that disprove my own. This means my time has been WELL spent, because I have been corrected and information has been revealed. All I expect is that where I treat people like this, they treat me the same way.

Let me try to illustrate:

Advocate says 'A and B, therefore C'.
Respondent says 'A is false because of D and E, and even if that wasn't so, B doesn't apply in this case'.
Advocate then may accept this, or say 'But D doesn't apply here. Maybe B doesn't apply, but if it did then...&c..
Respondent may then say 'I still think D and E are correct, because of F'..

...&c..&c...

Now it seems to me that the term 'rhetorical' here is used when the respondent has run out of ideas, so then says 'Ah, your last statement is rhetorical because [either] I can't think anymore for myself [and/or] I can't be bothered to reply'. In either case, a conclusion has been reached and it rides against the respondent. Or whatever.......

THE POINT IS THAT THIS FOLLOWING EXCERPT ISN'T A LEGITIMATE DEBATE;

Advocate says 'I think A and B therefore C'
Respondent 'You are lower than a snake's asshole for saying that'
Advocate 'This doesn't disprove C'
Other respondent 'Oh, you are so dopey aren't you. What a crap forum'

Can anyone spot the difference in the two dialogues I've presented here? Given the way of a number of threads recently, I am anticipating that not everyone can identify the differences.

[Betruger]

My vision's rated pretty much 20/20, thanks.

the discussions here fall so below any standard of critical thinking on enough occasions that this forum doesn't even think twice about this now.

Don't know what you mean. And I doubt just one of my posts and responses to it / absence of are any final gauge of all readers' critical thinking. And again you get a little overzealous and jump to the wrong conclusion.

Point wasnt that you get upset if someone merely refutes you; italics which is ideal and just what I've argued for every time it's come up ("spice must flow"). But that you'd get upset for your "time & effort spent" in vain because of the lack of respect shown for it in return. Which is something you've done a number of times to people you deemed "too stupid" in some way.
A minor point like I said. The point wasn't some snide sniping but that if anyone ought to know better than to get upset as described above, it's someone who knows that rhetorical device from first hand experience, e.g. you.


And your second analogy is not perfectly chosen. It illustrates your general beef with rhetorical methods (which is common sense) but fails the particular case: Doc Prins came back with the snake quip because someone ditched proper debate and instead did just what you're denouncing. Called him a snake oil salesman (and you echoed). I reckon snake's ass is tit for tat "you give me the finger, I'll flip you mine thank you very much".

[chrismb]

the discussions here fall so below any standard of critical thinking on enough occasions that this forum doesn't even think twice about this now.

Don't know what you mean. And I doubt just one of my posts and responses to it / absence of are any final gauge of all readers' critical thinking. And again you get a little overzealous and jump to the wrong conclusion.

I'm merely saying that there have been enough occasions, not that this is the case all the time. I don't think I have ever had a 'problem' with your posts, nor the majority of posters here, because you [and they] tend to do the former of the scenarios above. You are putting forward your opinion, with some facts [or pointing to an absence of occurrences], &c.. I welcome your post and am happy to have had mine challenged. Great. No issue.

My beef here isn't about the 'mainstream' threads of the majority, I enjoy the usual rough-and-tumble in those, it is about the reaction of a select few highly sensitive creatures who seem ill-prepared for a rigorous debate and resort to personal insults and characterisations.

Which is something you've done a number of times to people you deemed "too stupid" in some way.

If I have ever called someone on this forum "stupid" then it'd be a surprise to me, and if I have done so then it is a grievous error on my behalf. If I call an idea stupid then I reserve the right to do so as I would expect those who think my ideas stupid to tell me they think so. But I would expect a supporting argument to explain why it is a stupid idea, not merely that a person claims it is so, and I surely do not expect ad hominem attacks.

A minor point like I said. The point wasn't some snide sniping but that if anyone ought to know better than to get upset as described above, it's someone who knows that rhetorical device from first hand experience, e.g. you.

As said, I try to make points that are open to further debate. Next time I am being 'rhetorical' then point it out to me so we can, first off, determine if we have different ideas of what 'rhetorical' means.

I do not get 'upset' when someone rejects my arguments and rubbishes them. But I do get upset when someone makes a statement and refuses to justify that statement, because that is a disrespect to the debate itself, to which I have committed my time and effort. A major disrespect to the debate is to throw insults around. If you think I have ever done such a thing, then reprint it here. I do not believe I have ever done so, but if anyone wished to claim this, then just show me and I will be beside myself with apology.

And your second analogy is not perfectly chosen. It illustrates your general beef with rhetorical methods (which is common sense) but fails the particular case: Doc Prins came back with the snake quip because someone ditched proper debate and instead did just what you're denouncing. Called him a snake oil salesman (and you echoed). I reckon snake's ass is tit for tat "you give me the finger, I'll flip you mine thank you very much".

Well, OK..big cheese.. are you suggesting I should pick a clearer example of Prins' ad hominem insults, or that he has made none? This seems to me to be a defence of the indefencible.

[Betruger]

Don't have time to type more than a bit. Maybe it's unfortunate coincidence that I'm at once disinterested in who is right, motivated to see this debate (and most on this forum) crunch thru arguments and past misunderstandings to useful conclusions, and experienced enough with interpersonal issues that I find Prins' demeanor benign.

I don't think you've ever insulted anyone. I do think you neglected some opportunities to get people's cogs turning in favor of your preferred method of clanging a hammer against those cogs expecting to rouse people into making the cogs turn on their own. Terrible analogy but I'll clarify later.

[chrismb]

I do think you neglected some opportunities to get people's cogs turning in favor of your preferred method of clanging a hammer against those cogs expecting to rouse people into making the cogs turn on their own. Terrible analogy but I'll clarify later.

I think the time-imposed brevity and word-bumble has, actually, given rise to you neatly expressing this particular point. I agree. In this regard, I have clearly performed counter-productively and am trying to improve.

[Betruger]

Straight up honest understanding and agreement. My work is done.

Back to studying.