Re: Questions for John Sefton

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Questions for John Sefton
Date	2016-01-22 07:47 -0600
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<n7tbub$1rgf$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <b9b06e29-ee77-4af3-ad5e-58cbb117b6b7@googlegroups.com> <n7rlp2$aja$1@gioia.aioe.org> <10f2c2a3-8806-4156-b816-84e76bf103f5@googlegroups.com> <n7rq6q$hs8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9c487530-5f7c-4432-a3b7-8c1017c85838@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 1/21/2016 6:27 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 3:39:11 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>   > Are you or are you not the nitwit that once disputed my thinking based on the
>>> fact that it was contradicted by something, "in a book?"  Do you deny this?
>>
>> Facts in a book, yes.
>
> and for you that is an argument.  Right?

Arguments are unnecessary when there are facts that are counter to your 
contention, Jim. I think that's the part you don't get.

People keep pointing out obvious facts and data, and you toss that 
aside, demanding the argument instead.

For you, an argument is attention. You don't want truth, you want 
attention. That's why you ask for the argument and ignore the data.

>
>
>
> I don't consider facts resident in a cited book to
>> be abstract. Do you?
>> How about that I cited the experimental fact AND gave you the references
>> to both the book and the relevant chapters? Is that abstract?
>
> So, let me get this straight, you come here to tell us that fact are in books,
> and you think that is some kind of remarkable insight?  Is that it?

No, I've been repeatedly telling you that it doesn't take genius or 
remarkable insight to shoot your ideas to shreds, Jim. All it takes is 
simple facts, the kinds of things that can be found in books.

This is why people who engage with you do so BRIEFLY. When it is plain 
that you have no interest in SIMPLE FACTS, then people simply walk away 
from you. Because you are then a waste of time.


>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did you forget to notice that the last reference I gave you was from a
>>>> book,
>>>
>>> LOL.  A book with no name, no author.  Just a book.  You are a nitwit.
>>
>> Uh-no. Look again. I'll give you a hint, but ask you to look in the
>> usenet archives to verify. Author was Silverthorn. Title was Human
>> Physiology. Edition was 7th. Now, if you'll look, you'll see I also gave
>> you the chapters to read.
>
> So, you foud the book, finally.  What was the question.  i forgot.

Jim, I am REMINDING you of an EARLIER reference to a book. Which you 
ignored back then, putting it completely out of your mind, and which you 
are now AGAIN dismissing and putting it out of your mind.

Are you capturing for yourself how your mind works? "Ignore simple 
facts. Dismiss books. They're not important anyway. What matters is the 
argument, because the argument is the attention I crave."

>
>>
>> Now, if it's the case that you go BLIND whenever a book reference is
>> given, so that you do not have to see it, then there's nothing more
>> anyone can do for you. If you FORGET a book reference the day after
>> someone mentions it to you, then your mind has gone to mush and there's
>> nothing more anyone can do for you.
>>
>
> What other amazing insight do you have for us?

Simple insight. Directed at YOU, and only you. If your mind can't accept 
it, then that's on you, isn't it?

>
>>>
>>>
>>>    not from wikipedia or anywhere else on the internet?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and they are actually pedantic fools who don't really understand
>>>>>>> science.  Science is about dealing with facts and addressing
>>>>>>> substantive issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Facts, yes. "Substantive issue" is a subjective judgment. What seems
>>>>>> substantive to you may not be of interest to anyone but you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's about addressing issues explicitly and
>>>>>>> finding resolution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I can see that what you want is for people to address issues that
>>>>>> you perceive as important, and then spending sufficient time with you to
>>>>>> achieve resolution. Unfortunately, you are not owed that, and it is not
>>>>>> implicit in the charter of science either, as far as I've read. There
>>>>>> are LOTS of goofball ideas out there, and if you believe for one second
>>>>>> that each and every one of those goofball ideas needs to be treated
>>>>>> seriously, given thorough attention, and worked out to a resolution
>>>>>> satisfactory to all sides, then I'm afraid you're hopelessly naive, not
>>>>>> to mention an attention whore. Some ideas just are not worth paying
>>>>>> attention to, and by golly Jim, you've been carrying around a fine
>>>>>> example of that for years.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are a retard that knows how to use a search engine.  That's it.
>>>>
>>>> Which is a comment completely irrelevant to what I just told you about
>>>> what science does and does not owe you. You can choose to ignore what I
>>>> told you until you drop dead from a coronary, but ignoring it won't
>>>> change it or make it go away.
>>>
>>> I barely read what you write . . . so . . .
>>
>> Is your illiteracy something you'd like to pass blame on to me for?
>>
>> If you cannot read a straightforward SINGLE PARAGRAPH in English and
>> understand it, then I think it's no wonder that you have not absorbed
>> simple facts about the phases of water that so many people have tried to
>> remind you of.
>
> And you have some deep understanding, but it is in a book.  So you can't
> explain it to us.  Right?

Jim, simple facts that are in books do not need to be trotted out for 
you in an argument. There is no value and no point. You might as well be 
asking for an argument about why 2+2=4.

You can CHOOSE to discover the simple facts for yourself, or you can 
CHOOSE to ignore them. If you do the latter, as you have for years and 
years, then you will continue to get the response you've had to date.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can fully understand how frustrating it must be to you to have an idea
>>>> that only you think is significant, and about which you have succeeded
>>>> in getting a hair less than scant attention. Now, in response to that,
>>>> feel free to say something else about wikipedia.
>>
>> I'm astounded that at this juncture you didn't say something about
>> wikipedia.
>
>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not about what is known, any idiot
>>>>>>> can look something up on wiki.  The internet has given people
>>>>>>> like you false confidence that they are scientists when actually
>>>>>>> they are just typist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't use the internet for resources unless someone ASKS for an
>>>>>> internet resource. I much prefer reading books. That's where facts are.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are a pedantic fool.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thread

Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 14:53 -0600
  Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 13:06 -0800
    Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 17:21 -0600
      Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 15:28 -0800
        Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 18:07 -0600
          Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 16:34 -0800
            Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 18:43 -0600
              Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 16:50 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-19 19:50 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 07:07 -0600
        Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 18:09 -0600
          Re: Questions for John Sefton moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-20 03:47 +0000
            Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 20:40 -0800
              Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 07:30 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 05:58 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 11:15 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 16:32 -0600
            Re: Questions for John Sefton "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 22:47 -0800
        Re: Questions for John Sefton Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:11 -0800
          Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:06 -0600
    Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 17:56 -0600
  Re: Questions for John Sefton Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 20:11 -0800
  Questions for John Sefton jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-20 05:41 -0800
    Re: Questions for John Sefton Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 07:52 -0600
    Questions for John Sefton HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 07:03 -0800
    Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 09:24 -0600
      Re: Questions for John Sefton jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-20 10:03 -0800
        Re: Questions for John Sefton Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 12:29 -0600
        Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:55 -0600
          Re: Questions for John Sefton jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-21 07:58 -0800
            Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 10:26 -0600
              Re: Questions for John Sefton jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:26 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 15:02 -0600
      Re: Questions for John Sefton Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 12:50 -0800
        Re: Questions for John Sefton Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:15 -0800
          Re: Questions for John Sefton Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:44 -0800
    Re: Questions for John Sefton Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-20 10:07 -0600
    Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 09:55 -0800
      Re: Questions for John Sefton Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-20 12:53 -0600
      Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 16:40 -0600
        Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 15:23 -0800
          Re: Questions for John Sefton Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-20 19:22 -0600
            Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 05:38 -0800
              Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 08:41 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 07:01 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 09:18 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 09:26 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 09:01 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 20:37 -0500
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:12 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-21 18:00 +0000
                Re: Questions for John Sefton "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:49 -0800
              Re: Questions for John Sefton HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 06:55 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:52 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 12:29 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 14:46 -0600
              Re: Questions for John Sefton Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-21 10:25 -0600
          Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 08:55 -0600
            Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 12:45 -0800
              Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 14:56 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 14:01 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 16:23 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 15:27 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 17:39 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 16:27 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-21 21:56 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:47 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 18:04 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 20:43 -0500
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:32 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 08:43 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 06:56 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:59 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:34 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:22 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:45 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:51 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 11:05 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 09:44 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 11:51 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:10 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 12:31 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:50 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 02:17 -0500
                Re: Questions for John Sefton moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-22 19:01 +0000
                Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 12:03 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 12:02 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 11:00 -0600
              Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 15:06 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 13:59 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 16:18 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 15:22 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 17:31 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 16:21 -0800
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:53 -0600
                Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 16:32 -0600
  Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 13:06 -0600
  Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 17:45 -0800
    Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:29 -0600

csiph-web