4 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Comment removed
Jan 7, 2024
Expand full comment
Tim Owen's avatar

Except the errors are not hers. You’ve argued a contrarian, and frankly useless point, the is not on point but apparently your the only one that can’t see it. Just because you say it over and over still doesn’t make it right. Or even make sense but that’s your loss. I’ve just gotten Weiners book that you reference. He’s a genius and contributed so much to science. But he did it intelligently but your mimicking pseudo technobabble to prove a non point. I realize this is probably going to fall on deaf ears but think about the arguments that you present. If your subject is esoteric and uses subject specific language then it might be best if you become an expert in the field and explain it to an audience better. Richard Feynman’s rule was, that if you can’t explain it, you don’t know it.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Jan 7, 2024
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Tim Owen's avatar

Oh, for heavens sake. I’m also reminded of a quote. “Don’t argue with a pig in the mud. You’ll both be dirty and you’ll find that the pig likes it. I try to be as gracious as I can but you’re an idiot. One who quotes others well, but an idiot.

Expand full comment