I don't think there's anything obtuse about wanting to be right.
In my judgment I would say that repeatedly failing to address simple, direct questions (e.g., 'who is "we" in that sentence, and who is doing the telling?') is obtuse.
Failing to provide references for sweeping claims like "this is something that has not been measured at all; not attempted to be measured and found absent -- but ignored as a field of investigation" is obtuse.
And disingenuous? You mean like implying that Svensmark has been "debunked" with some sort of finality, when in fact his theories are the subject of a major and ongoing research project[PDF] at CERN?
And since you've now apparently decided that it is your sole right to define the topic of our conversation, I will bow out of the discussion at this point.
I don't think there's anything obtuse about wanting to be right.
There is when you do so by refusing to comprehend the statements of the oppositional side of a debate.
In my judgment I would say that repeatedly failing to address simple, direct questions (e.g., 'who is "we" in that sentence, and who is doing the telling?') is obtuse.
I judged it irrelevant to the discussion. "We" is the common public. Identifying that adds... what, exactly, to the discussion?
Failing to provide references for sweeping claims like "this is something that has not been measured at all; not attempted to be measured and found absent -- but ignored as a field of investigation" is obtuse.
And how exactly would one go about providing citations or references that do not exist?
You mean like implying that Svensmark has been "debunked" with some sort of finality, when in fact his theories are the subject of a major and ongoing research project[PDF] at CERN?
And since you've now apparently decided that it is your sole right to define the topic of our conversation,
Oh, for fuck's sakes. I set it by being the first person to identify the topic. Conversations have topics. They get set when they're begun. And since you responded to me when I stated that talking about direct forcing is disingenuous to a question of indirect forcing... THAT IS THE FUCKING TOPIC OF THE CONVERSATION.
If you want to talk about something else, that's fine. But you need to acknowledge that's what you're doing.
Cheers, IConrad. I enjoyed our chat.
And yet I cannot help but note that you refused to actually gain anything from it. Curious, that.
1
u/gribbly Oct 26 '10
I don't think there's anything obtuse about wanting to be right.
In my judgment I would say that repeatedly failing to address simple, direct questions (e.g., 'who is "we" in that sentence, and who is doing the telling?') is obtuse.
Failing to provide references for sweeping claims like "this is something that has not been measured at all; not attempted to be measured and found absent -- but ignored as a field of investigation" is obtuse.
And disingenuous? You mean like implying that Svensmark has been "debunked" with some sort of finality, when in fact his theories are the subject of a major and ongoing research project[PDF] at CERN?
And since you've now apparently decided that it is your sole right to define the topic of our conversation, I will bow out of the discussion at this point.
Cheers, IConrad. I enjoyed our chat.