On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Mauro Lacy <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Mauro Lacy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If the arguments stand on their own, why would you need an identity? > > The real question is: why not? I just explained all that! > You're afraid of being harassed? Oh come on. A friend of mine was harassed and majorly annoyed by some scumbags (s)he crossed on the internet. No thanks. I don't discuss my identity. I don't use claims about my education and experience except as illustrations. Those are not intended to persuade anyone and are simply in response to such stupid statements as that I don't understand calorimetry. >> 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 may have been confusing a nested response that included Jed Rothwell, As for the pejorative and gratuitous remark, I thought those were frowned upon on this forum. If not, I would have had a few for you. > 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. Yes. But that's what those who cite Josephson's support for Rossi do. If you can find a single instance of where I used an appeal to authority argument as a major talking point, please cite it. If you can't cite it, please don't claim it. Appeal to authority is rarely my style. >> 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. > I have no idea what that means.
