| |
M5WJF > ENERGY 12.06.05 22:32l 32 Lines 1422 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : CF0004M5WJF
Read: GUEST OE7FMI
Subj: Re: ZL4AJS and Nuclear Energy.
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<TU5EX<7M3TJZ<ZL2TZE<GB7PZT<GB7MAX
Sent: 050612/1144Z @:GB7MAX.#28.GBR.EU #:11742 [Bloxwich] $:CF0004M5WJF
From: M5WJF@GB7MAX.#28.GBR.EU
To : ENERGY@WW
Dick VK3ABK wrote:-
> The increasingly antagonistic comments directed to Andrew, ZL4AJS, by
> those who have read from different sources, are becoming insulting.
I do hope you are not tarring all with the same brush here, I have made
particular efforts not to be remotely insulting in my responses.
> I see 'The Scientific Method' is being used as a blunt instrument to try
> to score a hit. Unfortunately, T S M is being somewhat bent these days to
> fit a particular need.
I believe that Andrew first brought up the 'instrument' of this method,
and I thought this was probably inappropriate, since his source material
would appear to be bending any data to fit a strongly held view by a
religious sect rather than use T S M. In response to this, I didn't write
such a blunt, directionless Bulletin, intent on scoring as many hits as
possible, on as many threads as possible (some I've not been following),
like you've done here.
I merely asked reasonable questions and quoted different sources, and
maintained courtesy at all times (unlike yourself), and I'm sure Andrew
would be the first to agree. Scoring hits is not what Science (or Packet)
is all about, and neither is beard wearing, trying to 'beat down' anyone,
or wearing a badge.
If you could add any real Science to the debate(s) I feel it would be much
more appropriate than your present contribution.
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
