Attacking Joeknows, instead of the information...

If it belongs nowhere else, it belongs here!
Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Attacking Joeknows, instead of the information...

Post by Joeknows »

In fact, we all are done here.

Thread closed.

--Savonarola, Mod@Large
Wow! Just when I thought I was doing a "bang-up" job of describing how the system of "color," shows that when you combine information about objects you get an unworkable blackness; and when you combine information about "movement" or action, then you get a pure white that is far more workable and understandable. You really had to get the last word, didn't you? Well I am content with doing such a great job on the "light" part at the end. I was really hoping to show how morality connected with it's other half, science or better yet, just logic. I had a great picture that demonstrated how this worked. Of course it wouldn't prove it. Only considering and recognizing how and why this flow happens will actually prove it. But if you aren't willing to try, I can't do anything more, sadly.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Attacking Joeknows, instead of the information...

Post by Doug »

Sav showed how JoeKnows was just wrong about the nature of color. So JoeKnows tried to amend his view to fix it and ended up even more mixed-up and wrong than before.

So now JoeKnows pretends that his theory of color was great, and--even more amusing--after months of asking JoeKnows to provide evidence for his grand, sweeping claims about astrology and the origin of the universe, we find that he was just about to produce such evidence when the thread was closed.

Oh, what timing! But JoeKnows says that he "can't do anything more" since the thread closed. Sadly, that thread was the only thread that allows evidence to be posted, apparently! So now that it's closed, JoeKnows's hands are tied, and he just blames everyone else for not "trying."

Gee, and we were so close to finally getting evidence...
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
David Franks
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:02 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: Outside Fayetteville, Arkansas

Re: Attacking Joeknows, instead of the information...

Post by David Franks »

Joeknows wrote:At the very most heart of what I am presenting, I would like to convey this idea of how a particle and wave differ. Just like the difference in the Spanish language in "es/esta."
I've heard that somewhere before. Oh, yes: "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." But this time, it's in Spanish.
Joeknows wrote:I only pieced all this together about two years ago, so I am still kinda new to enlightenment, which I WILL admit to possessing, but not as a claim of the validity of my information, not at all. So I can get some pieces wrong, but I'm willing to be wrong in order to be certain.
In other words, you claim that you are enlightened, even though you will not (and cannot) show that your information is valid?

You aren't enlightened; you are endarkened.

By the way: congratulations on your mellow tone. It would appear you're laying off the alcohol in favor of the weed. If that is the case, then that would be the only wisdom you've shown here yet. Alcohol will kill you faster and less tolerably.
"Debating with a conservative is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: It is an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn't much help, and it makes very clear the fact that he will swallow anything."
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Attacking Joeknows, instead of the information...

Post by Savonarola »

David Franks wrote:But this time, it's in Spanish.
And he's not even being consistent with the words he chooses. He could at least the infinitive form of those verbs instead of varying conjugations of them, but he doesn't even know enough about his own example to get it correct. And I say that as someone who can't speak Spanish yet still knows it better than he claims to.
Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Attacking Joeknows, instead of the information...

Post by Joeknows »

Doug wrote: "So now JoeKnows pretends that his theory of color was great, and--even more amusing--after months of asking JoeKnows to provide evidence for his grand, sweeping claims about astrology and the origin of the universe, we find that he was just about to produce such evidence when the thread was closed."
I'm not pretending that my idea is "greater" or even changing it any. I'm still talking about the same thing, and wish that you would try to consider it instead of just being tedious about the exact names and terms I try to describe it with. If there is a better word to used to describe any process I talk about, please come forward with "your" version of it. If you don't have a version of it, don't pretend it is something else.

I was talking about "color" as a perceivable wavelength (I even talked about breaking it down by frequency, you obviously missed that part). Even if the idea of "white" isn't a color, we very much CAN make something "whiter." Therefore it is an objective state that can be recognized. My method at least intelligently comes up with a reason for the 7 colors, regardless of the number it is an intelligent system. And one for which you would rather tell people to memorize than to understand how it intelligently exists. The "tripe" you referred to in my quote about of how you hand out "what to think" to students instead of "how to think."


Is your plan to never talk about "white" in relation to "colors?" Because If you can be overly critical about whether it is or isn't a color, then I can get overly critical about when true "whiteness" is achieved. Because if we recognize that anything appearing "white" isn't fully white, then "whiteness" is not something that can ever exist scientifically. And can never be recognized even if it does exist. Yet we can see and recognize it in reality. And we can even use "white colored" paints or objects to produce a "white" effect regardless of the imperfection that comes along with it. This is just like the modern scientism method of throwing out information that can be obtained by a clear and rational look at the world around us. Just because it makes it easier to believe than to understand.

By nullifying the information about white existing as some type of object or entity, you have effectively created a smaller belief system than can contain true reality. Or what we call entering into a state of ignorance. And nothing that you do after accepting ignorance, will ever bring you true and effective results.

[note: there are so many ridiculous comments that I'm going to have to choose not to reply on how erroneous and completely opposite your understanding of the information is from what I actually said. All I can say is, slow down, read it twice if it sounds like "tripe."]

You said that you don't want to discuss this further because I am being overly tedious. But I'm not the one who is refusing to talk about the information because I didn't use "your" chosen appropriate word for it. Guess what? You aren't the only person in the world, welcome to reality! Yours isn't even the only language spoken, so you not only have to be flexible within your own language's dialects, you also have to recognize other region's development of grammar. Otherwise you are like a dog that can only jump through one hoop. You might be really good at it, but that isn't going to benefit the whole of the world, and in turn it will reflectively harm the integrity of your own local social environment.

Like when you thought it was so funny that I contrasted an object and a wave, or a particle and an action. They often say "it's funny because it's true." But you chose ONLY to laugh about it. And did nothing to actually consider what it meant. (Another case of you being so tedious about what to call it, that you ignore the information and just talk about the associated feelings.)

The infinitive of esta is "estar." But again you were being tedious about the name, and ignored completely how it connected to the topic. Bravo! I don't know the infinitive for "soy, es, estan, estamos." But you obviously understood what I meant, why did you avoid talking about it? But you had to act like you knew something more about it, and even kept back that knowledge about it, in order to try to look good.

It is exactly like when I used the word "tenant" instead of "tenet." It didn't change what I was talking about, and you knew that I meant "tenet." And yet you decided to laugh and joke about it for several of your comments, instead of acknowledging any relevance to subject at hand.
Savonarola wrote: "He could at least the infinitive form of those verbs instead of varying conjugations of them, but he doesn't even know enough about his own example to get it correct"
Could at least "what" the infinitive? If you are going to attack someone for inconsequential errors, shouldn't you first clean up your own errors? But that's the level of hypocritical attacks I get when I visit your page. But please tell me savvy, how does not knowing the infinitive form of that word directly translate into me not knowing "enough about his own example to get it correct?" That's a very direct statement you made, I hope you can back it up. I don't think you can even recognize what I'm trying to get correct, so how do you know that I got it wrong? (I know you won't answer or respond to this or half of the other statements I've made, so I will just "write it off" as another mistake that you have made. Currently at....too many to count in any reasonable amount of time.)
DavidFranks wrote: "In other words, you claim that you are enlightened, even though you will not (and cannot) show that your information is valid?

You aren't enlightened; you are endarkened."
You haven't added a single thing to any of these conversations. I didn't say that you are only 10% of the thinker of those other "faux teachers" just because you criticized or contradicted me. I said it out of the actual merit of work you have done towards discussing any of these topics on this hosted discussion. You just haven't said ANYTHING. Why don't you weigh in on something, anything that I've been discussing? But you have said nothing regarding how science or logic are other than what I have described them as. So if you have an opinion that is validated by real information, please bring it forward and join the conversation. You are more than welcome! But if you only want to "assume" a place of higher knowledge than others; I suggest you keep worshiping scientism or religion and don't try so hard to convince other people of what you are already so certain of. Let them fall on their faces if they are wrong. It is time to grow up and take responsibility for the recognizable truth, otherwise you are still just an ignorant child.
So I've noticed. Ad hominem attacks are not shreds of evidence.
Of course they aren't evidence. That is redundantly recognized. If you can't recognize that an ad hominem attack isn't evidence, then you shouldn't be discussing things here. You all need to stop being overly critical about what is or isn't "admissible" into your "court of evidence," and start considering instead of just criticizing. It will take you further, I promise. But the problem is that people like teachers dedicated a large part of themselves (time, effort, money) towards achieving that degree that certifies their professional expertise. After putting all that money and effort towards it, there is not a chance in hell that they will recognize someone without the same credits. If they did, they would be questioning the value of the place where they get all their information from, like a Christian questioning God. Not only would it be incredibly difficult for them to clearly assess something that they feel SO strongly about, doing so would directly erode the grounds with which they hold themselves above other non-scientists.
Savonarola wrote: So Joe thinks that I will not spend any time dealing with other information, yet I spend time responding to Joe's blather. Joe isn't too bright.
You actually think that you "respond" to my posts? Seriously? When have you responded other than to laugh at some slightly misused word that wasn't as "proper" as it could have been. Apparently you are only willing to listen to perfection, and that means you are going to be ignoring any seemingly chaotic thing that you don't quite understand. And that is not a healthy way to approach information. Having "spent time" replying is no justification for completely ignoring the relevant information contained. In fact it is more of a "non-reply" than a reply. Because you have not given a single honest response to me, and only rely upon attacking my presentation based on incomplete perspectives of it.
Sav wrote: "But to further show that he's wrong using specific examples: subsequent to the completion of my formal education, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry has redefined the hydrogen bond, and we've now learned that there is strong evidence against d-orbital hybridization and more evidence for the "three-center, four-electron" bond to explain hypervalent atoms within molecules."
Once again, how does this show that I am wrong? It sounds more like you are just trying to show that you know more about something than I do. How does this change the approach of popular chemistry? It doesn't. It is just a hypothetical idea that has no value in the real world. And YES, if you are wasting your time trying to hear every new concept of mainstream science, then you are certainly missing out on the bigger picture. You are putting all your devotion into only looking in one small area, and justifying it as the "best" one. There isn't one "best type" of place to get information. You consider information from ALL sources or else you are practicing some modicum of ignorance. (And also, yes I understand how orbitals work, I was the one who brought them up in the first place to describe the common function of energy across all matter. And yes I know how they work, remember me comparing it to base systems? Those valence shells are exactly like "potential bases" that can be used to a maximum of their allowance. Regardless of how they "end up," they still start the same way; and that tells us more about them then any guess about where it might eventually go. So why is this information critical to proving me wrong? It sounds more like it was another attempt at derailing the conversation and feeding your own ego. Trust me your ego has had enough. Stop bringing up something irrelevant to the conversation, "If you don't have something [relative] to say, then don't say anything at all!" And don't feel that you NEED to make some post about something you haven't spent time to understand. A real measure of a true free thinker, would be a willingness to consider the information WITHOUT jumping to an immediate conclusion about it.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Attacking Joeknows, instead of the information...

Post by Savonarola »

Joeknows wrote:Could at least "what" the infinitive?
You could use the infinitive. Or, it seems, you can't.
Joeknows wrote:If you are going to attack someone for inconsequential errors...
It's not an inconsequential error. The entire point of your argument is that there is a distinction in the meaning of this Spanish verb, but the meaning belongs more appropriately to the infinitive (and you demonstrate as much by being unable to decide which conjugated form to use instead). Your failing to use the infinitive shows that you don't understand the language as well as you claim to. That's extremely consequential, at least regarding your attempted point about the language.
Joeknows wrote: (I know you won't answer or respond to this or half of the other statements I've made...)
This is what happens when Joe "knows" things. Things that Joe "knows" just aren't true.
Joeknows wrote: When have you responded other than to laugh at some slightly misused word that wasn't as "proper" as it could have been.
Just off the top of my head: My destroying your idiocy regarding the seven colors of light. You're still squirming over this one.
Joeknows wrote:how does this show that I am wrong?
You accuse me of being unable to accept new ideas, so I showed you two examples of my embracing new ideas that replaced old ones. Thus, you are wrong when you say that I won't accept new ideas.
This is really very simple. Unsurprisingly, you don't even understand very simple.
Joeknows wrote:And yes I know how they work, remember me comparing it to base systems?
No, you don't understand how electron orbitals "work." And yes, I remember you referencing base systems, and I kicked your ass on those, too. You ran away from my challenge: Express any number in base ten that I cannot express in base two. You can't, because there's nothing special about base ten. Never was.
Post Reply