What degrees does Wal Thornhill have ?

[Snakeoil]

Dave,

I've debated Bridgman, and certainly he will lie his ass off, or if he's that ignorant, there's no helping him. But I made him pay the price Bridgman took his blog to "moderation" and then couldn't admit he didn't like the comments coming his way, instead he offered a lame excuse that he was "busy" and he knew his blog would draw a lot of comments and he wanted to be able to answer them.

No, he was getting his butt kicked and he couldn't take it any more.

Now, I was hard on him, yes, but considering his posts and comments, I thought he needed a complete "education"

Not everybody feels comfortable pointing out hard truths that are unpleasant for the other.

I understand that.

But "pigs" need to be put in their place.

I aim to do that

1. Admitting harassment
2. Being proud of it
3. Taking on the role of being the harasser
4. Justifying his actions
5. Promising to keep doing it

Anaconda, was it you who got banned from Wikipedia for harassment ?

[KickLaBuka]

1. Admitting harassment
2. Being proud of it
3. Taking on the role of being the harasser
4. Justifying his actions
5. Promising to keep doing it

Anaconda, was it you who got banned from Wikipedia for harassment ?

HAHAHAHAHHAHAH. I agree with Anaconda, but I promise to work on my harrassment "techniques" at SDC to maintain my status there. Science is unrelenting and there is room for argument, but not compromise (unless you're wrong).

[mharratsc]

1. Admitting harassment
2. Being proud of it
3. Taking on the role of being the harasser
4. Justifying his actions
5. Promising to keep doing it

Anaconda, was it you who got banned from Wikipedia for harassment ?

Bridgeman is an unmitigated pseudo-skeptic and intellectual bully. His behind-the-back ad hominem attacks on Professor Scott were uncalled for, and especially so after putting forth the facade of courtesy to Prof. Scott while they were face-to-face, but attempting to make himself look big by tearing Prof. Scott down when Prof. Scott was no longer present to immediately defend himself.

No, in this instance- I'll stand with Anaconda and say Bridgeman deserves the flak he takes.

Mike H.

[nick c]

Mike H,
Be prepared for this. From some things, hinted by Bridgman with regard to the EU, I am expecting his strategy will be to connect the EU to creationism. Remember debunking creationism is his specialty. I think that will be his next ploy. He has to know that there is no connection, so any attempt to make such a connection has to be interpreted as intentional deceipt (if that is where he is going). This form of blatant slander, though untrue could be very damaging, in the sense that those scientists who are casually aware of, or totally unacquainted with the EU will likely avoid the topic without any further investigation. The irony is that it is the modern cosmologists who are teaching a form of creationism (ie the Big Bang)!

nick c

[redeye]

I don't think attacking the dude, then bragging about it on the forum is gonna help...no matter how funny it is. I feel the same way about S A, this guy claimed that members on the Thunderbolts forum spent a lot of time slating him, then a lot of members started slating him, so it looks like he's right.

Slagging folk off like that just gives them more ammunition and sets a bad precedent, we don't want to become our enemies. Concentrate on the bawbaggery, not the bawbag!

Cheers!

[nick c]

Hi redeye,

I don't think attacking the dude, then bragging about it on the forum is gonna help...no matter how funny it is. I feel the same way about S A, this guy claimed that members on the Thunderbolts forum spent a lot of time slating him, then a lot of members started slating him, so it looks like he's right.

I agree. It is a slippery slope once we start making personal attacks, though I hope you weren't refering to my above post as a personal attack on Bridgman. I based my post on some statements by Bridgman in some group e-mail discussions which leads me to believe that he is about to equate EU with creationism as a means of discrediting the EU in the eyes of establishment science. If this is his track then it can only be described as deliberate and calculated, since he has to know it is not true.

Not all plasma physicists support plasma cosmology, any more than all christians support YEC. (there's that pesky comparison to creationism again, Dave!)

and,

The Intelligent Design advocates went into a Federal courtroom with essentially this same argument and got their asses handed to them on what it takes to be considered science.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial
EU flunks many of the same tests.(yet another pesky comparison to creationism, Dave!)

The intent here seems obvious to me!

nick c

[redeye]

Hey Nick

I hope you weren't referring to my above post as a personal attack on Bridgman.

Hell no! I'd had a drink before I posted that and I'm not that sure what I was on about. I agree with what you wrote. I have since installed a tube on the side of my pc which I have to blow into before I can switch it on.

Cheers!

[mharratsc]

LOL @ Redeye!

I'll confess that I don't know the full story about Bridgeman. I dunno how important he is or how big an audience he has.

<name calling deleted--mod>, and has some psychological issues with Christianity. Not necessarily religion(s)... he's very fixated on Judaeo-Christianity and the Biblical creation story. It seems that "You're a Creationist!" is the highest insult Mr. Bridgeman can convey

As to attacking him- I truthfully dunno what Anaconda has said to him. I'll agree with the past couple of posts that you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar, <name calling deleted--mod>. I would think that any audience that listens to him would probably agree with me, as well. Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh both have huge audiences despite their 'personal issues' just like Bridgeman has, and it's probably because of those issues that they audiences find them so entertaining.

However, in the long run it's never good to stoop to the level of the person you are at odds with, simply because bystanders will think that both of the participants are belligerent, vs. the one, as people have expressed to me personally on more than one occasion..

However, for anyone who might find themselves at odds with Mr. Bridgeman again in the future- if he ever pulls his "EU is Creationism" schtick out- need only remind him of the history of the Big Bang, and it's Roman Catholic priest of a founder...

Et tu, Big Bang??

Mike H.

Please see mod comments, this post
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =30#p23124

[Anaconda]

Hi eedeye:

I don't think attacking the dude, then bragging about it on the forum is gonna help...no matter how funny it is. I feel the same way about S A, this guy claimed that members on the Thunderbolts forum spent a lot of time slating him, then a lot of members started slating him, so it looks like he's right.

Slagging folk off like that just gives them more ammunition and sets a bad precedent, we don't want to become our enemies. Concentrate on the bawbaggery, not the bawbag!

Cheers!

I agree with your statement.

My comments were made at a point in time where I had been daily sparring with commenters at Universe Today.

There is a tendency to want to "blow off" built up tension, by articulating and possibly exaggerating whatever point you felt you had made in the course of discussion and debate. I would also add the comment was partly in response to some questioning of my subscription to the tenents of this forum which was irritating because I had been daily "slogging it out" with people who held nothing but contempt for all things "electric" in space.

Any person who subscribes to Plasma Cosmology or more specifically Electric Universe theory and then reads Bridgman's monograph, The Electric Sky, Short-circuited, will see how Bridgman treats the subject and can draw their own conclusions about Bridgman's treatment. Bridgman's blog is similar in style and content.

[Tina]

There is a tendency to want to "blow off" built up tension, by articulating and possibly exaggerating whatever point you felt you had made in the course of discussion and debate. I would also add the comment was partly in response to some questioning of my subscription to the tenents of this forum which was irritating because I had been daily "slogging it out" with people who held nothing but contempt for all things "electric" in space.

This is the problem when we "slog it out" - it produces tension and is ultimately counter productive. Try to discipline yourself not to enter into arguments because it is akin to banging your head against a brick wall and it distracts you from more productive pursuits. And it does no service to EU.

If Bridgeman does ever explicitly link EU with Creationism the best thing EU proponents can do is laugh in ROFL style. Don't stoop to the level of the baiter and don't swallow the bait.

[Anaconda]

Hi Tina:

There is a tendency to want to "blow off" built up tension, by articulating and possibly exaggerating whatever point you felt you had made in the course of discussion and debate. I would also add the comment was partly in response to some questioning of my subscription to the tenents of this forum which was irritating because I had been daily "slogging it out" with people who held nothing but contempt for all things "electric" in space.

This is the problem when we "slog it out" - it produces tension and is ultimately counter productive. Try to discipline yourself not to enter into arguments because it is akin to banging your head against a brick wall and it distracts you from more productive pursuits. And it does no service to EU.

If Bridgeman does ever explicitly link EU with Creationism the best thing EU proponents can do is laugh in ROFL style. Don't stoop to the level of the baiter and don't swallow the bait.

Tina,

I appreciate your comment, and with all due respect, the avoidance of "tension" never advanced anything.

Whether it is ultimately counter-productive to engage in discussion and debate depends on how you handle the tension and how you handle yourself in the discussion and debate.

Believe me when I tell you, the vast majority of people have never heard of Electric Universe or Plasma Cosmology.

But as others have alluded to, when folks that aren't committed to "modern" astronomy hear about and take the time to investigate Electric Universe or Plasma Cosmology generally, most come away with a favorable impression because the analysis and interpretation of the scientific evidence is straight forward and generally flows in a reasonable and logical fashion.

Science is about discussion and debate, argument, if you will, so while I hear what you are saying, I'll respectfully decline your well intensioned advice.

Actually, I would encourage every member of this forum and sympothetic guest or even just passing by lurker to engage the subject in some way with others.

After all, if nobody will stand up for their convictions, then the status quo will never change -- it's not my way to simply let the status quo continue when I know it's wrong.

Will that cause tension -- at times, yes -- but to do nothing is to insure nothing changes.

[Tina]

Believe me when I tell you, the vast majority of people have never heard of Electric Universe or Plasma Cosmology....

Actually, I would encourage every member of this forum and sympathetic guest or even just passing by lurker to engage the subject in some way with others....

After all, if nobody will stand up for their convictions, then the status quo will never change -- it's not my way to simply let the status quo continue when I know it's wrong....

I know you are a very committed to EU and you are helping to spread EU understanding. But my concern is still over arguing with the Phil Plait's of this world - these are the types of people who really are a waste of time and quite frankly I feel should be ignored. (IMO)

[StevenJay]

Science is about discussion and debate, argument, if you will

Are you sure about that? I always thought it was about expanding knowledge through direct disciplined observation, experimentation, gathering empirical evidence, etc. The debate/argument aspect seems to be, more often than not, an egoic excersize in being "right."

After all, if nobody will stand up for their convictions, then the status quo will never change -- it's not my way to simply let the status quo continue when I know it's wrong. Will that cause tension -- at times, yes -- but to do nothing is to insure nothing changes.

Unsustainable paradigms eventually and invariably collapse due to their inherent unsustainability. So, as I see it, one may spend one's time and energy locked in conflict with that which one does not desire. . . or, one's time and energy may be spent pursuing that which one does desire. To assume that change only comes about through external conflict is an egoic myth. As Tina pointed out, arguing with the Phil Plaits of the world is like trying to teach a pig to sing: you'll likely only waste your time and annoy the pig.

SHIFT (change) HAPPENS


"Sitting quietly doing nothing, Spring comes and the grass grows." - Zen saying

[Anaconda]

Hi Tina:

Believe me when I tell you, the vast majority of people have never heard of Electric Universe or Plasma Cosmology....

Actually, I would encourage every member of this forum and sympathetic guest or even just passing by lurker to engage the subject in some way with others....

After all, if nobody will stand up for their convictions, then the status quo will never change -- it's not my way to simply let the status quo continue when I know it's wrong....

I know you are a very committed to EU and you are helping to spread EU understanding. But

...my concern is still over arguing with the Phil Plait's of this world - these are the types of people who really are a waste of time and quite frankly I feel should be ignored. (IMO)

Specifically, in regards to Plait, I tend to agree because his website, Bad Astronomy, is mostly an ego trip for Plait and I don't like fueling his ego trip (Plait constantly refers to himself and it comes off like a "cult of personality" with his readers acting like a bunch of head nodding "groupies").

But in general, at most astronomy blogs, either the author or a percentage of readers are implacably hostile towards EU and PC, those are not the target, however, it is the non-commenting readers, casual readers, who follow the discussion/debate that are open to the suggestion to do individual research and investigation of the scientific evidence.

It seems the biggest fear "modern" astronomy has, I have found through the course of my discussions, is that individuals will do research on their own beyond the control of "gatekeepers", "moderators", and other "enforcers" of the faith, where the tools of "enforcement", such as ridicule, sarcasm, and threat of isolation (getting marginalized from the group) will have little or no effect. In other words, losing control of the terms of discussion is their biggest fear.

So, the effort, if such is going to be made, should focus on providing information that is intriquing and interesting enough that it rises above the static or noise most "enforcers" use in an attempt to drown out the message.

[Anaconda]

Hi StevenJay:

Science is about discussion and debate, argument, if you will

Are you sure about that? I always thought it was about expanding knowledge through direct disciplined observation, experimentation, gathering empirical evidence, etc. The debate/argument aspect seems to be, more often than not, an egoic excersize in being "right."

After all, if nobody will stand up for their convictions, then the status quo will never change -- it's not my way to simply let the status quo continue when I know it's wrong. Will that cause tension -- at times, yes -- but to do nothing is to insure nothing changes.

Unsustainable paradigms eventually and invariably collapse due to their inherent unsustainability. So, as I see it, one may spend one's time and energy locked in conflict with that which one does not desire. . . or, one's time and energy may be spent pursuing that which one does desire. To assume that change only comes about through external conflict is an egoic myth. As Tina pointed out, arguing with the Phil Plaits of the world is like trying to teach a pig to sing: you'll likely only waste your time and annoy the pig.

SHIFT (change) HAPPENS


"Sitting quietly doing nothing, Spring comes and the grass grows." - Zen saying

Are you sure about that? I always thought it was about expanding knowledge through direct disciplined observation, experimentation, gathering empirical evidence, etc. The debate/argument aspect seems to be, more often than not, an egoic excersize in being "right."

Of course, you are right in regards to the actual empirical science part of the exercise, that is the most important part by far, but communication, i.e., discussion/debate is also an important part. Looking at the history of Science or the history of Man, for that matter: "ego" has always been part of the mix, indeed, "ego" is part of Human Nature, so to avoid all appearances of "egoism" is to disengage from the process of disseminating knowledge in a contested environment.

Unsustainable paradigms eventually and invariably collapse due to their inherent unsustainability.

Are you sure about that?

Or rather, do paradigms collapse because they were "pushed" by individuals "armed" with a superior paradigm? And these individuals were willing to communicate their superior paradigm in the face of determined opposition.

So, as I see it, one may spend one's time and energy locked in conflict with that which one does not desire. . . or, one's time and energy may be spent pursuing that which one does desire.

Of course, one may spend their time, "smelling flowers on a hillside" or other pleasurable pursuits. But will that change anything? It seems like self-justification for not engaging in the "arena of ideas" where somebody might push back at you and cause some discomfort.

Sure, personal enlightenment, by a course of individual study can reap great gains in understanding the world around us, and ultimately that is what getting the message out is trying to inspire, but simply assuming that reality will win out flies in the face of human experience.

Man does not advance by simply "smelling flowers on a hillside"

To assume that change only comes about through external conflict is an egoic myth.

No...

It is the hard learned experience of Man...

Man is quite content to sit in the cave and look at the shadows on the wall and assume that is reality.

In fact, men will kill to prevent others from communicating what exists in the sunlight if that contradicts what the shadows on the cave wall show and it disrupts the power of those who control the fire in the cave.

Yes, there are lotus eaters, but lotus eaters are not known for expanding the knowledge of Mankind.