Kevin, that doesn't look like sneering to me, more like simply Joshua's assessment of the motivations for positions that others are taking, without invective or nastiness that I can see.
I am generally saddened to see the recent witch-hunt/culling of dissent/heresy in the Vort. The 'sneering' rule is being applied asymmetrically, and frankly of late it is becoming more like a doctrinal church. Killing off opposing views like Abd, Andrew and others does not improve the quality of the discourse. I like that imagination, wild ideas and hope have free rein here, but I also think it is essential to temper that with dissenting views to get to the heart of problems. On 31 May 2013 10:29, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote: >> >>> I thought that the DC issue was put to rest. >>> >> >> Only according to the credulous true believers. >> > > > >> you want it to be true. >> > > ***Sneering. Against the rules. > > Joshua, I'm gonna give you a big hint to realize just how stupid it is to > engage in this manner. > > Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their > reputations on the line. They have a 6 month test coming up. They're > gonna need someone who's creative and committed to rooting out fraud and > magic tricks. Where do you think they'll look? Well, the first place > they'll look is Vortex, to see who's been challenging the vorts with some > fire-branded & tested skepticism. But they will quickly overlook someone > who seems dishonest enough to sabotage the results. > > So, do yourself a favor and get rid of the sneering. Honest skepticism > is welcome. > >
