Ah, so it was about book sales.
Linda
Linda
Ah, so it was about book sales.
Linda
I didn't think it was unreasonable to ask Henry Bauer to clarify whether the "science court" he had in mind was one in which expert judges would make decisions based on the substance of the evidence, as advocated by the originator of the concept, or one in which decisions would be made by "by judging whether opposing witnesses seem responsive or evasive, consistent or inconsistent, forthcoming or arrogant, etc.", as Bauer had said.
Still, perhaps the criteria of "responsive or evasive, consistent or inconsistent, forthcoming or arrogant" do have their merits. (2017-11-22, 10:01 PM)fls Wrote: Ah, so it was about book sales. Maybe it was a mixture of things that were to blame: The forums policies that diluted his conversation. Dante's preemptive post. Your own ego. His ego. The few people that participate in the forum. Etc etc Maybe book sales can be included somewhere down the list. But I don't think they are his primary concern.
Oh my God, I hate all this.
(2017-11-23, 09:56 AM)Stan Woolley Wrote: Maybe it was a mixture of things that were to blame: Yes, my brief, tongue-in-cheek comment probably did not capture all the factors in play. Forum policy would not hinder a discussion on his "science court" and the idea that non-experts make valid judgements on the basis of whether presenters are responsive or evasive, consistent or inconsistent, forthcoming or arrogant, etc. It was a bit disconcerting to be met with "read my book" rather than an attempt to address the points which were raised. I'm disappointed, as I thought this was going to be a good opportunity to really dig into the idea. Linda
Sheesh. What a pussy.
Does anyone here really think Chris and Linda weren’t asking valid intelligent questions? (2017-11-23, 05:20 PM)malf Wrote: Sheesh. What a pussy. Malf said > "What a pussy ?" and > "Does anyone here really think Chris and Linda weren’t asking valid intelligent questions?" The latter (FLS) is (possibly) doing the usual (shenanigans) IMHO that is but I can't "prove" it. Also why does someone who agreed to do an interview deserve to be called a pussy ? (2017-11-23, 05:20 PM)malf Wrote: Sheesh. What a pussy. Would've liked if he would've chosen to respond, but is it that shocking that he didn't, really? Stan listed a lot of good reasons for him not to I think. I realize Linda was probably partially kidding but suggesting that he came here, of all places, to promote book sales is a joke in itself. What do we have here, less than 100 members? Yeah, I'm sure he thought this would be a hotbed for increasing book sales. Either way, his choosing not to engage is probably not very different from lots of people who tire of the round and round, pretty much the same discussions that are bound to occur in places like this. I'm sure he has no lack of experience with such situations. If you'll call him a pussy, you probably should call everyone who wants to take a break from this forum or grows tired of the endless back and forth a pussy too. Kind of a stupid response. (2017-11-23, 07:24 PM)Dante Wrote: Would've liked if he would've chosen to respond, but is it that shocking that he didn't, really? Stan listed a lot of good reasons for him not to I think. I realize Linda was probably partially kidding but suggesting that he came here, of all places, to promote book sales is a joke in itself. Just don’t forget this episode next time he’s bellyaching about folk not engaging with his nitwitted ideas. (2017-11-23, 07:55 PM)malf Wrote: Just don’t forget this episode next time he’s bellyaching about folk not engaging with his nitwitted ideas. Looks to me like he made a sensible decision.
Oh my God, I hate all this.
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|