Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:27 am
Chris, those aren't ad hominem. They're insults accompanying the argument, rather than being used as part of the argument.
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
Sorry but no, we're not having a debate and there's nothing juvenile about it. chris has forfeit any right to respect through years of constant effort to be the center of attention. I've asked him nicely dozens of times to knock it off and go get some counseling but he always returns because his mommy and daddy never gave him positive attention. He therefore seeks the only kind of attention he can get, which is when he derails discussion onto himself. Look at this folder now. chris is getting what he wants--a full page of comments not about the subject, but about chris--and he's eating it up.djolds1 wrote:. . .both you and GIT are debating in a juvenile fashion
In that case, you are ignoring the first law of netiquette - don't feed the trolls.GIThruster wrote:Sorry but no, we're not having a debate and there's nothing juvenile about it. chris has forfeit any right to respect through years of constant effort to be the center of attention. I've asked him nicely dozens of times to knock it off and go get some counseling but he always returns because his mommy and daddy never gave him positive attention. He therefore seeks the only kind of attention he can get, which is when he derails discussion onto himself. Look at this folder now. chris is getting what he wants--a full page of comments not about the subject, but about chris--and he's eating it up.djolds1 wrote:. . .both you and GIT are debating in a juvenile fashion
Or has an oddball sense of style - its odd, but not diagnostic. I've been far from perfect myself here over time, but if this forum is not useful for various topics of physical theory and mechanics, it becomes a waste of time for everyone. And screaming matches do not amount to utility outside a voice coach's studio.GIThruster wrote:Just a clue to the concerned, when someone posts crazy notes in third person, that he has retreated from society, it doesn't take a psychologist to see the guy is seriously troubled.
Of course they are, because GIT uses them in a response to undermine the legitimacy of a posited fact-based argument. Just a 'for example'; what other purpose would there be to say "I should think though, it is obvious chris is arguing for the sake of being a troll." other than to attempt a characterisation to avoid addressing a valid question? The implication is that it is not the question itself at fault, but the poser of the question and therefore the question needs no answer.93143 wrote:Chris, those aren't ad hominem. They're insults accompanying the argument, rather than being used as part of the argument.
Because I have answered you, chris; dozens of times on these issues. I explained more than a year ago that the way Jim checked for spurious contribution from the instrumentation lines was by removing them entirely and obtaining the same results. That test was not done at your request, but rather at Dr. Duncan Cummin's insistence that they might be somehow generating either a false signal or even real torques on the beam. They were not. You asked about this many months ago and I answered you. You asked about it again the other day, as if I have never answered your question, when in fact I did. I have answered dozens of your questions over the last few years.chrismb wrote:. . .what other purpose would there be to say "I should think though, it is obvious chris is arguing for the sake of being a troll." other than to attempt a characterisation to avoid addressing a valid question? The implication is that it is not the question itself at fault, but the poser of the question and therefore the question needs no answer.
GIT has avoided answering valid questions he chooses not to answer with insults. If the purpose was not to answer, then why did he not, simply, not answer?
The topic is polywell fusion.GIThruster wrote:You're a festering, malignant disease, looking to spread itself anywhere it can find purchase and you do not belong in this forum.
My accounting of how Jim removed all the instrumentation wiring and received precisely the same results was at your request. I was in fact answering your question despite I had already explained this months earlier as a normal forum update. I explained it for the THIRD time a couple days ago when you brought it up again. I'm sure you'll bring up the instrumentation wires again in the future just because you know it irritates me.chrismb wrote:The lack of anyone's knowledge here on propellant-less thrusters is what you must expect and accommodate, not refuse to answer.
This is really the issue for you. Like most of us, you know you don't understand GR, yet your response to this is completely opposite what a rational person's is. You think you're entitled to criticize science you can't understand. From that assumption, you search until you find an objection and then force your objections on anyone who will listen in order to be the center of attention. Fact is though, all this stuff has been peer reviewed for decades. The people who understand gravity and GR don't have the objections you do. And this is one of the most irritating things about you chris--you have constant delusions of grandeur that you MUST be right even when you know you don't understand the subject. That's why you don't deserve an answer, because it literally does not matter the quality of answer you receive. You are going to go on to fabricate yet another objection because this is what emotionally disturbed people do in order to remain the center of attention. They cause trouble in any way they have to, and it doesn't matter to them how much a diseased person they portray themselves as.At the end of the day, the whole notion of all the propellant-less thrusters is based on manipulated equations. It is substantially insufficient to say that the equations to which you expect people to accept show that it is possible to extract momentum from a different time and space. The incredibly obvious and immediate prima facie response MUST BE that the equations are not realistic.
The only direct request chrismb has so far ever requested is to include the power source in the inertial frame of the 'thrusted' device. No other requests were knowingly made by chrismb. You have asserted that these things you mention satisfied that request, but refused to discuss if that assertion is valid.GIThruster wrote:My accounting of how Jim removed all the instrumentation wiring and received precisely the same results was at your request.
It is absolutely, ABSOLUTELY, correct that one is at liberty to criticise work that is either not supported by rigorous, repeatable, experimental outcomes OR that does not arrive at the same conclusions as established scientific principles. If the latter is claimed, then the former must be indisputable for the whole to gain credence.GIThruster wrote:You think you're entitled to criticize science you can't understand.
Tired 5 year olds often ask the most demanding and pithy questions, and it is a self-opinionated adult with contempt towards those he sees as 'ignorant' who would refuse to answer.GIThruster wrote:Conversation with you is very much like conversation with a five-year old who needs a nap.
I haven't seen any rational arguments against my position. Surely you don't think you made one? What did you think my position is?Your lack on understanding of this principle of science is at the heart of why you fail to comprehend, and respond appropriately to, rational arguments against your position. . .
...and if you don't, then you leave??GIThruster wrote:Lets make a deal, shall we chris? You give me one single argument against what you believe my position is, and if I answer it to everyone's satisfaction here, excepting you of course; then you leave this forum and never return.
Here I agree with chrismb.chrismb wrote:It is absolutely, ABSOLUTELY, correct that one is at liberty to criticise work that is either not supported by rigorous, repeatable, experimental outcomes OR that does not arrive at the same conclusions as established scientific principles. If the latter is claimed, then the former must be indisputable for the whole to gain credence.GIThruster wrote:You think you're entitled to criticize science you can't understand.
Your claim is that those who seek to criticise must first acquaint themselves with a library of information that you insist they go find for themselves. This is false, particularly on a forum dedicated to Polywell Fusion; it is for you to lay out the scientific case, if you have one.
Your lack on understanding of this principle of science is at the heart of why you fail to comprehend, and respond appropriately to, rational arguments against your position, and so instead you resort to threatening violence.
I'm not sure I like the thrust of your argument.GIThruster wrote:coward.
Fine by me.chrismb wrote:...and if you don't, then you leave??GIThruster wrote:Lets make a deal, shall we chris? You give me one single argument against what you believe my position is, and if I answer it to everyone's satisfaction here, excepting you of course; then you leave this forum and never return.
chrismb has never entirely excluded the possibility of returning to the forum to discuss developments related to POLYWELL FUSION (remember, that's what the forum is about).
If people here really wanted to discuss this stuff, there are forums dedicated to it, are there not? When you refer to "a festering, malignant disease, looking to spread itself anywhere it can find purchase", does this not amply and better describe your own aims to move from your thruster forums to this FUSION forum?
However, it can be confirmed that if GIT never posts in this FUSION forum again about propellant-less thrusters, then no further posts under chrismb will appear about it either.
Is this to everyone's satisfaction here ('excepting you of course')?