Stephen stated: “Same old Mark. He hasn't changed. If you're skeptical, you get ad hominems.” Not true Stephen…
Both your and Mary’s whole argument against my chastising the repetition (by one person) is based on the premise that I don’t like skepticism. You obviously did not see or read my recent comment back to Mary destroying that assumption: 1) There are several others who are just as skeptical as Mary, and I have not chastised them because they do not continuously state their position. 2) I was the one who brought up the criticism about the thermocouple possibly being too close to the steam inlet on one of the demos, so I have significantly CONTRIBUTED to the skepticism. The diff is that I, and all other skeptics on this list, don’t continually remind the forum that the evidence is inconclusive. So your assumption that I attack skepticism is blatantly false!! I am simply chastising the endless repetition that constantly comes out of one person… I seriously doubt if there is anyone on this forum who doesn’t know what MY’s position is. Please provide a link to the posting where I referred to you as ‘pathetic’, and if I did not apologize, then I will do so. -Mark From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 12:52 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion" - Revisited On 12-01-04 01:35 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: 2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> Mary Yugo stated, for the millionth time, “A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.” Same old tired repetition, despite numerous requests that you avoid it. You just never learn… Is there really a brain behind the name or is it just a very poor implementation of Artificial Intelligence responding to vortex posts? If AI, then the programmer forgot to #include <learn.h> -Mark Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and Defkalion. You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity that spawned it. Why do you think that is? Same old Mark. He hasn't changed. If you're skeptical, you get ad hominems. I've been filtering out his messages ever since he responded to a comment of mine regarding Naudin's results with a not particularly incisive argument to the effect that I was "pathetic". Mary, regardless of whether you're a woman, a man, or a chatterbot (or, for that matter, somebody's pet chinchilla which has learned how to type, as well as how to do calorimetry), you're very probably wasting your time by arguing with Mark. (The last two seem pretty unlikely, of course.)
