What he's demonstrated so far was that:
His persona thinks very highly of itself.
He can be top poster of the day on Headfi with messages that, upon scrutiny, have no content.
End of list.
He didn't address any legitimate point made against his Don Quixote narratives. I looked a little and could not find one instance. IMO, he's a hot air balloon.
1.
Thanks for your input
Thanks for sharing your
personal opinion. Please do share more. It does help a lot for our discussion
I love to see comments like the quoted one above as it triggers me to think more. It also helps me to demonstrate how
critical thinking can help a person to avoid getting into an
unnecessary embarrasing situation that he created himself.
The more comments like that, the more examples I could have for demonstrating the power of critical thinking (and the lacking of it). Thanks again for your comment.
ok, let's go back to your comment.
2. My feedback
"
His persona thinks very highly of itself." <== I wouldn't disagree this statement. Most of my friend have similar comments. Meanwhile, I love to see
more people who can thinks very highly of himself too.
To me, I think that a person must have something that is good, e.g. knowledge, analytical thinking skill, good learning technique, etc.... (at least that's what he feels) to make him to have such feeling. I'd be very interested to find out more from him what he is good at as he may be a
good teacher for me to learn my missing knowledge.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying I am very smart, very knowledgeable, nor very intellegent.
No, I didn't say that. If you feel that, that's your personal own feeling. I am not going to argue with you about your own feelings. Similarly, I would not argue with you that "you
should not hear it" or "you really hear it"
I just want to say that I am not stupid or dumb. People would have a hard time if they want to
BS me with tons of jargon or technical stuffs or
trick me into believing any psuedo science claim. I have enough knowledge and sharp critial thinking skill to debunk all these.
So, I agreed that your statement stated a fact (i.e. you expressed
your opinion about my persona) unless you have any hidden message in it that no other people can see. (I will explain later below with the example of "
He wrote that in 2012" regarding what's hidden message)
By the way, do you really want to deliver a
hidden message other than your personal opinion that "
His persona thinks very highly of itself"?
Sorry for my poor communication skill, I don't see any hidden message in your mesage (even with my critical thinking skill). Please let me know
explicitly if you want to say something more. Otherwise, I will assume you don't have any hidden messsage in it.
If you worry that your message would be
too straight and I would be feeling unease or offended because of that, I can guarantee that I won't.
Please deliver your message as bluntly as possible. Of couse, if you feel unease to express yourself bluntly, feel free not to do it. I respect people's choice.
3. No content?
"
He can be top poster of the day on Headfi with messages that, upon scrutiny, have no content." <== I agree that I may be a top poster of the day on Headfi.
Regarding the other descriptions "with messages that, upon scrutiny, have no content", that is your personal feeling/experience/opinion (unless you claim it is a fact with supporting evidence).
For personal feeling/experience/opinion, I would not say you are correct or wrong as it is your own feeling, it is something like "I can hear it" or "I cannot hear it". I would not argue with that.
"have no content"? <=== I understand the general public cannot understand Quantum Physics and General Relativity easily so they would see articles on these topics as "no content" (as they cannot get it). I believe these articles are written for the people who are capable to read it. Is it a fact that these articles are "no content"? People can find out the answer themselves with their analytical thinking (if they are willing to apply).
In fact, I am pretty surprised to find out that people who use the term "confirmation bias" a lot in their comments would have a wrong understanding of the true meaning of the term. The true meaning of the term (i.e. the definition) is easily available on wikipedia for someone who is willing to find it out. Did they apply the concept of "corret but not absolutely" when they mis-use the term for their own benefits? For this, I am not sure. Only they would know the real answer.
I truely believed that "we all have the ability to think analytically" (the belief). Most people don't apply it just because they are lazy.
However, after various discussions recently on different forums, I doubt the belief now... ...
I could be wrong regarding the belief as there are many supporting facts to indicate that the belief is wrong. I am very disappointed to see that.
p.s. Feel free not to read any article on Quantum Physics or General Relativity if anyone found these articles as "no content". We are living in a free world. People have free will to pick what they want to read or not.
==========
4. Hot Air Ballon?
"
IMO, he's a hot air balloon" <=== I understand why you have such feeling. As I highlighted earlier using the example of Quantum Physics and General Relativity articles, a hot air balloon to someone could be a piles of gold to other. I understand fully why some people would consider a piles of gold to be a hot air ballon.
If people don't know what is gold, they would just consider these are just some shinny yellow color metallic
rubbish.
From your comment ("He didn't address ...."), it looks me that you want to highlight that I didn't address something you asked before. Correct? If there is any, please let me know, as I thought I did address all your questions.
==============
5. Hidden Message
By the way, I notice that you may want to avoid my question I asked earlier as shown below. (It was my mistake if you are too busy and just overlooked my question)
If you don't mind, could you elaborate more what's the hidden message in your reply? What do you want to say with "He wrote that in 2012"?
Of couse, feel free not to answer if you feel unease about it.
'He wrote that in 2012' <=== I am confused. It may be a fact that he wrote that in 2012 (as I didn't check) but how this 'fact" is related to our discussion here? Do you want to say that his writing could be incorrect because it was more than 10 years old? Or you want to say that his writing should be right as it was written more than 10 year ago. Sorry for my ignorance, I really didn't get what you want to say about 2012.
Cheers