 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.66.49.211
In Reply to: RE: Please suibmit your credentials posted by unclestu on August 26, 2011 at 12:55:05
In addition, if you're prending to be an ignoramous you're doing an excellent job.
Follow Ups:
of proper credentials: Absolutely no documentation of your claims for being a theoretical physicist; Bogus explanations of claimed effects when no third party "proof" has been rendered, just anecdotal "evidence"; A refusal to even make a most elementary experiment to verify the effect of certain claims you have made.
Despite your claims of being a "rocket scientist", and a "theoretical physicist", you have never convinced a majority of readers that you are even slightly qualified in making such claims. By your line of reasoning, I can claim to be genius (I have been invited to join Mensa, BTW, and was a National Merit Semifinalist [I never applied for any scholarships, a mistake on my part], but that placed me, at the time 40 years ago, as being in the upper 1/2 of the top 1% in the country.
You can keep on calling me names if that makes you feel better, but the sad truth is that YOU are woefully under qualified to make the outlandish claims you have already made. You show little knowledge and understanding of the subject for a claimed "theoretical physicist". You depend on reviews on the works of eminent scholars and true scientists. You have little understanding nor do you evidence any readings of some of the fore most thinkers in the current field of modern physics. When I bring up some of those names, you claim that I am name dropping.
You make your claims based on a 12 foot square listening room. Isn't it about time you moved out of your parent's bedroom?
Stu
"Name calling in lieuof proper credentials: Absolutely no documentation of your claims for being a theoretical physicist; Bogus explanations of claimed effects when no third party "proof" has been rendered, just anecdotal "evidence"; A refusal to even make a most elementary experiment to verify the effect of certain claims you have made."The burden of proof is not mine. Anyway, Demands for Proof are against AA policy. Don't you know anything?
"Despite your claims of being a "rocket scientist", and a "theoretical physicist", you have never convinced a majority of readers that you are even slightly qualified in making such claims. "
I suspect what you're really trying to say is the backsliding, tin-eared pseudo-skeptics just won't take No for an answer and will argue til they're blue in the face, this thread a case in point. I could care less if someone doubts my word, my claims or doubts my credentials. I just consider the source. This is not a peer review process. And, frankly, you are not my peer. I think it might be a good idea if you repeat to yourself, "It's only a hobby, it's only a hobby."
"By your line of reasoning, I can claim to be genius (I have been invited to join Mensa, BTW, and was a National Merit Semifinalist [I never applied for any scholarships, a mistake on my part], but that placed me, at the time 40 years ago, as being in the upper 1/2 of the top 1% in the country."
Nice try, but as you apparently don't know your argument is an appeal to authority and is irrelevant to this discussion. You might as well say you were invited to join Alcoholics Anonymous, for all I care.
"You can keep on calling me names if that makes you feel better, but the sad truth is that YOU are woefully under qualified to make the outlandish claims you have already made. You show little knowledge and understanding of the subject for a claimed "theoretical physicist".
You're just a big fat liar. Since you are not a theoretical physicist you are not qualified to judge whether I am a theoretical physicist. Anymore than you are qualified to judge someone who claims to be a microbiologist. Now, you might be able to judge someone who claims to be a steelworker.
"You depend on reviews on the works of eminent scholars and true scientists."
But the reviews were scholarly, so your statement doesn't hold water.
"You have little understanding nor do you evidence any readings of some of the fore most thinkers in the current field of modern physics. When I bring up some of those names, you claim that I am name dropping."
But you ARE name dropping, Einstein. Name dropping is a common tactic of the died-in the wool "skeptic" who has no real argument to present. To make matters worse the names you drop are irrelevant to the discussion. Actually, you've demonstrated over and over that you can't follow a simple discussion. Have you given any consideration to taking a remedial course in reading comprehension?
"You make your claims based on a 12 foot square listening room. Isn't it about time you moved out of your parent's bedroom?"
Gee, a strawman argument and name-calling all in one sentence. Boy, are you dumb. Ever heard of headphones? Do you honestly believe there's something inherently wrong with a 12 foot square room? You're just grasping for straws.
Edits: 09/04/11
Thank GOD! I am not your peer. Hate to stoop so low.
Stu
Actually, I just consider you a peer, as in bedwetter.
, now that's a brave admission.
Stu
example of all the faults you enumerate.
LOL!
Stu
PS:
Fact one:
You claimed to be a theoretical physicist.
Fact two:
You posted explanations outside of AA, so hiding behind the mission statement does not apply. Since the ISO mission statement is to encourage discussion in an enlightened manner, it is clear that you are avoiding the issue at hand.
Fact three:
You have yet to prove that the effect is "real". At least May acknowledges that she believe the effect is on the listener's mind i.e. psychosomatic.
Fact four:
Burden of proof? LOL! Who was it that proposed that NASA jump in with an experiment? Yes you avoid the issue of proving anything, because , quite obviously, either you are afraid to submit to testing or you don't know how to conduct an impartial test.
Fact five:
When confronted with your extremely limited credentials and the fact that your "explanations" outside the forum are truly bogus in that thert is nothing "scientific" about them in terms of postulating a cause and effect, you run and hide behind "mission statements" and a total ignoring of answering the issues raised.
Do you ever think about what you write before posting? Your contradictions are so evident that no one reading your comments can put any trust in your writings.
As for your 12 foot room, how the hell did you develop the means to recommend placement of the crystals about your speakers? Don't have a living room available? You sound like a high school kid that never grew up.
Stu
Your tone is so angry and jealous and your questions and comments so abysmally dumb I've decided to terminate this discussion. Even I have my limits.Best wishes in your quest for mediocrity.
Oh, by the way, feel free to continue ranting like a lunatic if it makes you feel better.
Edits: 09/08/11
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
