Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 5:00 pm
Your opinion need not be a valid statement. But a statement "He is a liar" is a statement of purported FACT. Statements of fact should be be valid.polyill wrote:I fail to understand why my OPINION must be a "valid scientific statement". Really.KitemanSA wrote: If your "judgements" were along the line of "his data don't support his claims", I would ha[v]e to agree with you and as I understand it, that would be a valid scientific statement.
But people like you are saying "he is a liar". They then present trash as evidence and are annoyed with me when I point out their "evidence" is trash.
THEY are making the "positive claim" here (he IS a liar), one that needs evidence to corroberate. Haven't seen any yet.
And no, that doesn't make me "holier than the Pope", just righteous enough!
Not arguing with that. I see nothing to support his contentions. That does not make him a liar. Deluded maybe, correct, maybe. A liar MAYBE. His lack of veracity is no more proven than his contention vis-a-vis the E-Cat; at least that I have seen so far.polyill wrote: Rossi's opinion on capabilities and performance of the so-called E-Cat,
the way he presents it, IMPLIES scientific validity, mine does not.
If what you present is an admitted opinion, then fine, you are entitled to your opinion, and you may very well be correct.polyill wrote: Likewise, since I make no scientific claims, but rather present an opinion, what you call evidence is rather information (partly factual and partly not) relevant with regard to my opinion, which I choose to present.
We don't seem to have a dog in this hunt. We both have the opinion that Rossi is probably wrong. I have no issue with anyone who shares our OPINION. My concern is the self-righteousness of those who make statements of "fact" and fail to support them.polyill wrote: You can call it "trash", if that is the attitude you prefer, but that's not what annoys me.
Your righteousness, OTOH does. Frankly, it defies its own purpose
(like Human Rights Watch does by defending terrorists), exercised by you.
Now you have me confused. you say that I am righteous as if that were a bad thing.polyill wrote: Your claim of lack of evidence for Rossi being a liar just proves my point:
all you care about is being righteous, regardless of the matter of discussion,
What elephant?polyill wrote: even at the price of loosing the matter of discussion completely
and claiming the Elephant is not there, 'cause "they" can't tell you
how many liters of elephantity does it currently contain.
So you think it is all right for folks to make libelous statements in the forum, but not all right to point out their folly? If that is "troll-like" paint me a troll. But that ain't like any definition of "troll" I've ever seen.polyill wrote:
That is awfully troll-like
Wha?? You implied I had the URGE to be holier. I said I have no such urge. You say "of course I can't be holier than the pope, that is the point." The point SEEMS to be that you can't track your own discussion. The only "holier than the pope"-ishness around here is tween your ears. How this is "trollish" on MY part excapes me.polyill wrote: And Kiteman, of course it does not make you holier than the Pope;
You can't be holier than the Pope, that's the point about this saying,
mmmkay?
oh, the urge to be holier than the Pope...