Well, first of all, I was not using my degree as a defense of my hypothesis. I was using my degree of a defense of my ability to present a logical
argument, because you said this:
But, as it stands nothing that anyone with any logic would believe.
You basically stated that nobody with any logic would believe my hypothesis. I assumed that you meant that my arguments held no logic, and therefore I
was being illogical, and I countered by saying that actually I am a very logical person, because I have a doctorate degree in a scientific
profession. (I have a Doctor of Pharmacy degree, if you really want me to clarify what kind of degree I have. As well as a Bachelors of Science in
Pharmacy. There, now you know what kind of doctorate degree I have. )
Also, you said that you did not tell me how I should post on ATS, but you clearly did when you said this:
Once you have accumulated all of your evidence, and then post your findings.
If you will read my post again, you will see that I was not using my degree as a defense of my hypothesis. (I know that pharmacy has nothing to do
with 2012 or the New World Order in any way, shape, or form.) I was just miffed that you said that nobody with any logic could believe my hypothesis,
and I wanted to show you that I am quite capable of using logic.
I had to use quite a bit of logic in college in order to earn my doctorate degree... and I have to use quite a bit of logic every day that I show up
at work at the hospital and have to point out to the physicians why they should not prescribe a certain combination of drugs together, and how that
combination could kill their patient... and how that would logically result in the death of (or severe damage to) their patient. They are also able to
follow my logic quite nicely.
However, if you would rather I not used my degree or my profession to defend my ability to provide a logical argument...if that offends you....
instead I will use another defense: I will use my debate championship to defend my ability to use logic.
My debate partner and I were our city's undefeated debate championship team one year (this was before college). I can assure you that debate judges
are VERY logical people, and they had no problem following my arguments and my hypotheses. So, therefore, I think I have a past history of using
quite good logic when presenting my arguments. Is that better than using my degree as a defense of my logic?
Maybe you just aren't very logical. Because I think I laid out my arguments quite nicely. Or maybe you can only think linearly and technically, but
In any case, I don't want to get into a huge argument here. If I offended you by trying to prove that I was logical because I have a degree in a
scientific field, then I'm sorry. But you offended me first by saying that nobody with any logic could believe my hypothesis.
Listen... I'd rather debate the issues, and not each other. I was just trying to prove to you that I am actually quite capable of being a very
logical person, and quite a few logical people in the world (pharmacy professors, physicians, and debate judges) are able to follow my hypotheses
quite nicely. So, let's just stick to the issues, shall we?
Or, if you can't stick to the issues, maybe this is a clear cut case of if someone not being able to attack the hypothesis... so you attack the
presenter of the hypothesis?
If not, then let's just call a truce. You offended me (which I believe was quite intentional)...I got defensive and (unintentionally) offended you
back....so we're even now.
[edit on 12-1-2009 by nikiano]