Hardcoreathiest,

Thanks for the "suggestion". Do a topic search for my posts in that thread. Nothing about that EE stuff is supported by reality or mainstream journals would be "bustin' caps" at each other to get the publishing rights. Read the important unanswered questions that just seem to hang like fog. Mechanisms? Falsifications? Verifications? ... all falling short IMO to support an EE.

When a paper is cited as support for there being no subduction, and the very paper itself contains information about SUBDUCTION, it becomes moot to engage any further, and I haven't. This isn't. I could give a crap about an EE or I would comment therein. I find that thread far from "intense". There are several people countering these EE assertions quite easily without my intrusion. This isn't the EE thread.

I was addressing another poster, here in this thread, and this EE matter is only a sidebar to the pattern of intent Bman employed. My intent was to help make others aware, or remind them of, the underhanded tactics we saw employed. I also had hoped to understand what ingber has written, if he/she were to take the time.

RS

theropod wrote:Hardcoreathiest,

Thanks for the "suggestion". Do a topic search for my posts in that thread. Nothing about that EE stuff is supported by reality or mainstream journals would be "bustin' caps" at each other to get the publishing rights. Read the important unanswered questions that just seem to hang like fog. Mechanisms? Falsifications? Verifications? ... all falling short IMO to support an EE.

When a paper is cited as support for there being no subduction, and the very paper itself contains information about SUBDUCTION, it becomes moot to engage any further, and I haven't. This isn't. I could give a crap about an EE or I would comment therein. I find that thread far from "intense". There are several people countering these EE assertions quite easily without my intrusion. This isn't the EE thread.

I was addressing another poster, here in this thread, and this EE matter is only a sidebar to the pattern of intent Bman employed. My intent was to help make others aware, or remind them of, the underhanded tactics we saw employed. I also had hoped to understand what ingber has written, if he/she were to take the time.

RS

I got the gist, that EE was about partial support for subduction, proposing a crossover with alterations to the models but, I dont want to get involved in that can of worms. I cant understand that EE thread anymore except its gotten pretty technical and beyond me, as is this thread. If this is Pseudoscience today its getting sophisticated as hell, but natural evolution I suppose.

A real shame the guy got BANNED from the forum because his 'theory' is total comedy !
Side-splitting in fact !
(Mental note : NEVER draw someone a radiation pattern for a dipole EVER again) !!!
LMAO !

NLMTECH wrote:A real shame the guy got BANNED from the forum because his 'theory' is total comedy !
Side-splitting in fact !
(Mental note : NEVER draw someone a radiation pattern for a dipole EVER again) !!!
LMAO !

Although he loudly claims otherwise elsewhere, it's worth noting that he didn't get banned because of expounding theories, crackpot or otherwise, but rather persistent abuse, constant trolling, really quite twisted levels of nastiness... and finally having achieved sufficient warnings for a temporary suspension, fake legal threats against the owner of the website. His campaign to topple ratskep grew for a while, then as it seems with most things, he got bored of it and went to do something more productive.

Yes, that sounds about right !
A highly developed case of O.C.D. gone overboard !
(With a dangerously high level of superciliousness that many out there would aspire to !)