In Reply to: Re: John Curl, you still grabbing at straws?? posted by john curl on November 24, 2002 at 11:07:41:
""To me, 'sniping' is the criticism of someone elses research without attempting to verify or ascertain whether your criticism has any merit.""Criticism of someone elses research hasn't happened within my posts. You react to a question you do not wish to answer by calling it sniping, and then deflecting the issue, dropping names, saying "read a book", criticising education, saying "oh, I proved that wrong 20 years ago", ad nauseum. People will soon be passing around the "top ten reasons John Curl is better than I" list. Humor is always the best medicine.
Criticism...no.. All I asked was "" if 110 dB below 50 mV at 35Khz was audible to humans.""
That is not criticism. Criticism is: "what you are testing is BS, you are stupid, you don't know what your talking about, your mother wears combat boots." A simple, nicely worded question is not that.
It may indeed prove out that the "measurements in the mud" you are doing correlate to the real issue. Then again, it may not.
Your attitude is not one of a professional. Is it any wonder a lot of the big names don't frequent this forum? To be constantly on guard lest John Curl feels impinged upon?
As you can see, I don't live my life worrying about you. You can be right at times, wrong at others.. I also "own" the same subset.
""So far, you have 'sniped' Hummel""You misquoted him, then beat everybody down with your "new electron physics" mumbo jumbo, which I am ridiculed about whenever I bring it up to a real physicist. And you still are unable to answer the question I posed with regard to that "physics", a simple, high school level question. How long did you spew that stuff on this forum??? And how many people were beginning to believe it??
""Hawksford,""
I identified a possible testing error, and discuss it with him. Pointing out an error in research is mandatory for the advancement of science. Blindly accepting incorrect analysis and testing methods is the quickest way to bring scientific advancement to a halt. I'm beginning to believe more and more that that is why you do not like peer review.
""and me, in that order""
YOU??? I hadn't sniped. You can believe what you want. I find a lot of your "postulates, or pseudoscience" to be beneath response. Unfortunately, those here without E/M theory background might actually believe some of your "interesting" theories...That "faith" based system is better suited for religion, not a technical forum.
Having papers not accepted for personal reasons is unacceptable, your story is interesting, and worthy of public review. But has nothing to do with your continued unprofessionalism..It's not a valid excuse.
My definition of whining? Read all the posts you have made in response to one of mine. THAT is whining. And that is unprofessional.
TTFN, John
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- It would seem so.. - John Escallier 06:04:33 11/25/02 (4)
- Re: It would seem so.. - john curl 09:26:24 11/25/02 (3)
- John, do you read your e-mail?? - John Escallier 10:28:38 11/25/02 (2)
- Re: John, do you read your e-mail?? - john curl 10:57:33 11/28/02 (0)
- Re: John, do you read your e-mail?? - john curl 10:22:16 11/28/02 (0)