> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Mauro Lacy <ma...@lacy.com.ar> wrote: > >>> Sometimes it's inconvenient not to be able to use one's own identity. >>> >> >> Then, use your own identity. If your arguments stand on their own, you >> can >> surely stand by them. >> > If the arguments stand on their own, why would you need an identity?
The real question is: why not? > There are sometimes major inconveniences and downright nuisances, some > potentially dangerous, when one uses one's own identity to expose > fraud or abuse. I don't need those. There are more considerations > to revealing your identity on the internet than whether or not the > arguments make sense. You're afraid of being harassed? Oh come on. > > I suppose most cold fusion advocates are "mostly harmless" (The > Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy says so). But there are all sorts of > whackos "out there", some of whom take umbrage when their favorite > sacred ox is effectively and persistently gored. The psychics who > claim telekinesis, telepathy and who talk to the dead are a wealthy > and powerful example. Some of these people make dozens of millions, > maybe hundreds, every year. If one really wanted to, he or she > could hire someone to do violence on a detractor. These people, who > prey on the grieving have not the slightest morals or scruples and > could be dangerous. Why risk it? It's not necessary. > > I notice that you argued against my call for proper blanks/calibration > runs to eliminate all the ruckus about heat of evaporation of steam. > Your arguments, IMO, do not stand up to scrutiny but if they did, it > wouldn't matter who you are, would it? I wasn't. You must be suffering from an identity confusion case. That's maybe something that comes as a kind of compensatory malaise. > > I'm sure I don't need to remind you that relying on the identity of > someone who supports a claim as evidence for the claim is the logical > fallacy of "appeal to authority". But, talking about logical fallacies, to reveal your identity is not an appeal to authority. When you claim that you must be right because you're who you are, that is appeal to authority, Mark. > That a Nobel Laureate, Josephson > thinks there's merit to homeopathy doesn't make it so. It's still one > of the dumbest and lowest common denominators of junk science. > You must have said: I, <insert real name here>, think that it's still one of the dumbest and lowest common denominators of junk science.
