Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by curious7
Whiners? Trolls? People disappointed that you showed them a "hoax"?
I think not.
That's okay. You are entitled to support someone that posts glaring and obvious lies.
I've noticed you spend most of your time in the 2012 section trying your damndest to debunk it.
Please don't overstate the simplicity of showing that 2012 is a hoax. It is easy. I get this notion that you think that just because the hoax of 2012
is so very inane that there must be something to hide.
(I'm a man of science myself so I should know that right?) and that we can't accurately predict something will or won't happen over a year
and a half away from the supposed "date" due to the unpredictable nature of our universe.
I don't believe you that you are a so-called man of science. I see this as camouflage. You suggest that you don't understand the precision of
See what I mean?
I do. You are unable to fathom how science works, yet you pretend to. That's okay. Take the tie to learn how science can make certain predictions and
most of all get the notion o precision figured out.
where your debunking detective skills and "thinking inside the box" state of mind may be just as useful, if not more than it is in trying to
debunk an entire year before we even reach the halfway point of 2011.
Those supporting 2012 are the ones with their heads in the sand or in the box or whatever metaphor you choose. The evidence is out there to "debunk"
if those with their heads in the sand would look at the evidence.
1. I'm ok to "support someone who posts glaring and obvious lies"? It seems as though in that line you're giving me permission to do so as if I
have to ask you personally before I'm allowed to think anything for myself.
Who says they're lies? Far out conspiracies maybe but lies? That purports the notion that something exists to be considered a truth or a lie in the
first place. If this supposed "dwarf planet", "gas giant", "Nibiru/Planet X" or anything else you wish to call it hasn't been sighted or
discovered and so far lies firmly in the realms of "speculation and theory" then it can't be a lie now can it?
I could say that gnomes created the atmosphere, that would be a speculation, a far out theory. Now if I said the atmosphere was made of soft silicon
rubber coating, that would be a lie would it not?
Vast difference between "lie" and "speculation".
2. "Man of science" was said in a purely contention that I firmly stand on and believe in that side of things, that we need science and have enough
evidence to prove, disprove and many other things related to our physical being and surrounding universe. I apologise that I didn't state that at the
time, an oversight on my part. I'd rather stand on the side of science than plunge myself head first into theory and speculation although dipping my
toe into the waters every once in a while is a nice escape route from the clinical and steadfast approach science takes.
Now I don't blame you for misconstruing my obvious oversight in my statements above in the quotes you used but your response seemed to be on the
attack. How exactly would you know for sure I don't understand? Can you read minds? Delve into the heads of people to find out for yourself what a
person does and doesn't know?
Of course not. Besides, science hasn't proven that such a thing can even exist or happen. I just feel that my oversight left me open to your attack
on me when honestly, I may know more than you on a subject or it could be the other way around. We just won't know because we're on a message board
on the internet and not in a scientific convention discussing and trading knowledge.
Not sure if you meant to sound aggressive or not, could be a natural defense mechanism you've developed on the 2012 section since joining ATS and
you're a little too quick to judge due to the back and forth you may have had with members such as GoldenFleece. Can't say for sure, that's my
hypothesis but as I said, life is made of 50% facts and 50% guesswork until the facts come. I'm sure you will provide the fact to make my hypothesis
on your judgmental and "quick on the draw" defensive position.
3. "Thinking inside the box" was my way of somewhat complimenting you so again, please take nothing aggressive from that. As you probably are aware,
"thinking outside the box" is a term coined to describe thoughts that differ from the norm, which goes outside the usual realms and confines of
science to find a conclusion to a tasking proposition.
You on the other hand "think inside the box" by using what we of scientific minds (myself, yourself, amateur and professional scientists, etc) know
as fact and presenting that knowledge to support the factual reality rather than the fringe.
I actually enjoyed reading your posts both before and immediately after I joined ATS and find you of the same intellect as myself, a refreshing change
from the usual dumbing down I have to do with friends and family away from the internet to fit in with them.
The only thing is that not only do I find the 2012 section a "snakepit" as GoldenFleece called it due to the rise in arguments and squabbles over
who is right rather than sharing knowledge and ideas to create a more factual and evidential scenario than "planet suddenly appears" or whatever, I
also do find your obsession with 2012 very unhealthy.
Now I can be as judgmental about somebody I don't know as you were about me by claiming I am "unable to fathom how science works yet pretend to".
Which is funny because although I don't know how quantam physics works and can't yet wrap my head around things such as that, my wealth of
scientific knowledge and desire to learn more are immense. So yes, contrary to your opinions and "theories" of my own knowledge, I understand
science and how it works perfectly well thanks. But I appreciate your concern.