EvC Forum: Poll: Does Buzsaw Deny Obvious Error?

The only way for you to proceed consistent with the guidelines is as follows. You should choose one of the following.

Choose to stop discussing the subject, and stop repeating the claim.

Please pause and consider how I've ratchetedd my claim down, as to the status of these as you people have admonished, i.e. ratcheted down from "scientists in their own right" to "prestigious," and I'm stopping there. Why? Because scientists, researchers and engineers are at least, for the most part, not the average people on a given street or common bibbers at the average pub as someone catagorized them, but people who, for the most part have degrees, people who are interested enough in cosmology and aware enough to have read, understood and signed the petition about redshift and cosmology. They obviously know more about the subject than you are giving them credit for when you catagorize them as random street people. OK, so some are "cranks." Maybe so, but even cranks bring up some, I say some arguments that even you may be hard pressed to refute. They're not here to defend themselves nor their positions, and I'm sure not apprised enough on them to do so. Imo, therefore, can't you just condescend from your high horse and throw me a bone or two on this, rather than to regurgitate it up and up and up as it it's enough to make all this fuss about my posting operendi?

Unless I missed it, I think you ignored my point that I painstakenly did the debate, effeciently and according to guidelines with a great deal of thought behind each statement before posting. Then I painstakenly and thoughtfully responded to the numerous counterparts about that debate according to forum guidelines, carefully responding to nearly each post of them all which needed a response. Then in the end what do I get? I get narry a peep about efficient debate in the GD. I get narry a peep of commendation for improving on response conduct as previously admonished by admen. Yes, as you know, what I got was that, imo, infamous warning from Percy, of possible suspension which angered me to the point of a request for a poll thread.

Choose to engage the subject, by actually responding to the rebuttals in some way. You don't have to answer every objection all at once, but engagement absolutely requires you to deal with the specific arguments raised in rebuttal to your claim.

I tried to do that throughout the thread in which the first warning of suspension was given. You're, imo, obfuscating that by honing in on this subsequent stuff about the list, which really had little to do with the GD thread or the thread about the GD in which the suspension warning was given.

OK? This is not a hard ask. The latter option is the ideal for a debate forum; but if you feel it is too difficult for some reason, then a simple disengagement is okay as well.

Fine. I'll try to make double sure I don't mess up in that regard.

But you choose the third option, of continuing to repeat the claim that there are "multitudes of prestigious intelligent folks" who have some alternative, but refusing to actually look at the names and the rebuttals, then you are bogging down debate, and basically being a disruption. That will get you suspended eventually, and rightly so.

Again, this's not what started all this and what brought this thread to be. It's a side show that admittedly I could've handled better, but in itself suspension fodder? I don't think so.

On a personal note, you have said some complimentary things about me and how I engage this subject.

So let me point out: your insults above are way out of line, and grossly unfair and unreasonable.

"Bibliophobic"? Come on! Get a grip. Your problem is precisely the opposite. The people who have been engaging the subject of big bang expansion with you have been far better at supplying references and citations and books and documented justification than you have managed. And when the discussion gets specific, looking in detail at counter claims in their own words and on their own merits, you beg off the debate! Your initial remark is merely a nasty bit of hypocrisy.

Ok, my friend, I apologize for this word which irritates you so. I've been called much worse, by numerous counterparts over the past two years, none of whom were called on the carpet until now, but I can tolerate that. I'm not even "prissy" enought to be offended by the f word as some have advocated, depending on how it's used and how personal it gets, though I don't have a lot of respect for it's usage publically. After all, what's bedroom intimate activity and crotch stuff got to do with debate on science, et al?

Anyhow, criticism well taken on this and I'll try and remember not to use the word again.

..... not shrill repetition of the original claim and vaccuous declarations of unfair treatement.

OK, lets make a deal. I'll end declarations of unfair treatment (so long as new incidents don't arise) and you end declarations about my list unless unappropriately referenced by me.

Here is a little bit of concrete though on your claim.

You have only once that I know of introduced actual support fpor your claim. The sources you cited were Vincent Sauve, who is by his own admission not a scientist; and Tom van Flandern, who claims to be a scientist or engineer, but is a very easy and straightforward example of an out and out crank.

I have given an initial basis for that evaluation, and am willing to proceed with the analysis further. Much further. I looked into van Flandern some years ago, and he is not someone you want to be trusting as prestigious or intelligent. Vincent Sauve is even easier, because I presented his own self-evaluation. You can follow up on these either at the Big Bang critics thread, or by dealing with Percy's response to your sources in this thread.

But so far as I'm aware, you have not addressed the specific claims of Van Flandern or Sauve so as to empirically refute those claims, have you? For example, maybe it would be good for you some time in the future when you have the time to address Tom's seven tests as posted in the Sauve's link. I didn't post the entire study because of the space it would've required. Since you're advertizing him as an uncredible crank, maybe you should do this to back up your own claim.

The insult "bibliophobic" is a particularly galling bit of hypocisy, since the rebuttals by Percy and myself were plainly for more hard work at tracing sources and references than you have ever managed.

Mmmm, "hard work, rebuttals?" More of these by you and Percy than by buzsaw? How much time, thought and energy would you estimate you and Percy combined did on me than I tediously did on Jar and a host of other counterparts in the threads that got my suspension warning? You don't have to answer that, unless you wish, but food for thought.

Or perhaps you meant some of the names listed secondarily by your sources? They also have been considered in specifics. My judgement is that there is only one name who really merits the description "prestigious", and that is Halton Arp. Not world shattering prestigious, but with a solid basis for international reputation in observational astronomy. Yet Arp does not have an alternative. He really only has one criticism of the standard account, which has been debated and analysed at length in the literature, and solid reason given for rejecting it. Be that as it may, Halton Arp continues to defend his notion of physical association of objects with disparate redshift, and I acknowledge that as part of the normal work of science.

Well then, do I take this as at least a teeny bone you're throwing my way that at least one dogged bonafide scientist credible scientist supports my dogged contentention about space?

The rest are non-entities (like Sauve) or cranks (like van Flandern) or virtual unknowns with no claim to prestige (like Marden) or mavericks with no good claim to be scientists (like Lerner), and so on and so forth. You can pick any name you like, and I am willing to give it a fair shake; you must engage to make progress in the discussion if you wish to keep making a claim that has been substantively rebutted.

I guess the important thing, though when the rubber meets the road is whether you can empirically refute their various claims on the various aspects of cosmology and science in general. There's folks, after all who're not scientists perse who are scientifically and cosmologically apprised on these things and possibly, I say possibly in some cases more so than some prestigious scientists. I believe one of the Nobel prize winners someone (maybe you?) brought up in a link I read was a student. Not sure about that though.

Your problems here are far and away of your own making.

Yah, my friend, I've got plenty of them, but do try to sandwitch them, when you can with some improvements, I've been working on. OK? I know your ultimate wish and goal is to help me and I'll be more aware of some of these things regardless. Thanks.

I'll take a look at your other post to see if there's anything needing a response and be done.

(Edit: corrected to say "make a deal.......unless inaproperately....."

This message has been edited by buzsaw, 02-22-2005 00:53 AM

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

2 online now:	LamarkNewAge, Rahvin
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 2/4