Abd: You've been most patient, and Jed too, in trying to bring JC up to speed on the facts, don't waste your time... Of course, one could predict how he was going to respond, with the following statement:
"You know, if you spent less time trying to analyze my motives, and describe my style, and call me names, and stuck to the topic, your posts would be 1/3 as long, and much more compelling reading." It's completely obvious to anyone who takes the time to read this thread that you and Jed have been most patient, and it was only your most recent posting or two that delved in his motives. Up to that time, you both genuinely tried to update him on the state of the field, but as you so aptly stated, JC doesn't even acknowledge those instances where you or Jed present him with facts which refute his hand-waving and sweeping generalizations... He doesn't even have the decency to acknowledge when you make a valid point -- that one thing is essential to gaining any credibility and respect from the Vort collective. Not being able to concede a point is a clear sign of someone with an ulterior motive, or a pathological skeptic who simply can't accept things which challenge their understanding of things. Not surprising... He reminds me of some of the worst editors on Wikipedia! -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 3:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude? By the way, my responses to Cude will be drastically shortened, I suspect. If Cude raises some issue that anyone think is crying out for an answer, "second the motion," so to speak. Ask for response.
