Incorrect. He was a largely talentless moron and fraud. He never contributed a single thing of value to science whatsoever. He also stole a lot of money and time from a lot of people, and so was a common thief to boot.
Change my mind (by supplying something of value to science that he did contribute)!
Bro I wouldn't bother arguing with jack. I've debated this guy before and all he does is pretend like hes some genius with more knowledge than you and never actually talks about his facts or even sources anything. Its just pilpul all the way down, and he's great at it too. He tries to "win" the argument by pissing you off and thats it, he doesn't care about the facts or imparting knowledge to others, just claims he does. All he does is character defame.
I'm sure he'll comment and try to trick me into a debate too but the only way to win is to not play.
That's true. Argument is for idiots. I only engage in rational discourse. If you think you are debating or in an argument when speaking with me, you are confused and pissing in the wind.
He tries to "win" the argument by pissing you off and thats it
It saddens me that you may actually believe that. I have only the intention to share and to discuss, the "inflaming" happens organically. Take this thread for instance. The "insults" (actually valid criticisms and conclusions bore of research) were directed at beardon, but "TheScience" mistook that for personal attack against them :( Misunderstandings are easy, and communication is hard.
You can't "win" a discussion, but you can lose the plot and the point of it. I seek to discuss, not "win"! As I've said to you before, there is no judge and no audience - it is just us, struggling to communicate!
Incorrect. He was a largely talentless moron and fraud. He never contributed a single thing of value to science whatsoever. He also stole a lot of money and time from a lot of people, and so was a common thief to boot.
Change my mind (by supplying something of value to science that he did contribute)!
Bro I wouldn't bother arguing with jack. I've debated this guy before and all he does is pretend like hes some genius with more knowledge than you and never actually talks about his facts or even sources anything. Its just pilpul all the way down, and he's great at it too. He tries to "win" the argument by pissing you off and thats it, he doesn't care about the facts or imparting knowledge to others, just claims he does. All he does is character defame.
I'm sure he'll comment and try to trick me into a debate too but the only way to win is to not play.
That's true. Argument is for idiots. I only engage in rational discourse. If you think you are debating or in an argument when speaking with me, you are confused and pissing in the wind.
It saddens me that you may actually believe that. I have only the intention to share and to discuss, the "inflaming" happens organically. Take this thread for instance. The "insults" (actually valid criticisms and conclusions bore of research) were directed at beardon, but "TheScience" mistook that for personal attack against them :( Misunderstandings are easy, and communication is hard.
You can't "win" a discussion, but you can lose the plot and the point of it. I seek to discuss, not "win"! As I've said to you before, there is no judge and no audience - it is just us, struggling to communicate!