Theed powerplant vs lightsabre

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-02-06 10:05pm

Like DarkStar, he nitpicks and argues semantics, then accuses you of nitpicking and arguing semantics.

Lord Edam · Post by **Lord Edam** » 2003-02-07 04:09am

It's really funny watching you whinge about nitpicking when there's five pages based entirely off your nitpicking of what I originally posted.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-02-07 04:34am

And yet in those five pages you havent really provided any substantial proof to back up your bullshit claims. you're hardly in a position to be complaining, Edam.

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2003-02-07 07:50am

BTW, Edam, you're welcome for the free lesson on the electromagnetic force. I usually earn a substantial amount of money for that sort of tutoring.

Lord Edam · Post by **Lord Edam** » 2003-02-07 10:16am

The Dude wrote:BTW, Edam, you're welcome for the free lesson on the electromagnetic force. I usually earn a substantial amount of money for that sort of tutoring.

If you normally get away with leaving out such important things as "but you need a regular crystal structure or it's no more solid than water", or "Of course, it'll take a magnetic field so strong that you'll be dragging metallic objects from miles around to actually make the electrons solid" then you're overcharging and leaving your students with a serious lack of understanding.

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2003-02-07 10:28am

Lord Edam wrote:If you normally get away with leaving out such important things as "but you need a regular crystal structure or it's no more solid than water",

Oops.. I assumed you understood that the difference between liquid water and ice was in the arrangement and bonding of the molecules. Next time I will be sure to start your lessons at a more introductory level.

or "Of course, it'll take a magnetic field so strong that you'll be dragging metallic objects from miles around to actually make the electrons solid"

Luckily no such field is necessary.

then you're overcharging and leaving your students with a serious lack of understanding.

Well, I didn't overcharge you, but I have apparently left you with a serious lack of understanding.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-02-07 10:47am

Lord Edam wrote:It's really funny watching you whinge about nitpicking when there's five pages based entirely off your nitpicking of what I originally posted.

You're in no position to talk. Your only evidence of "lasers" is the presence of the name and that kind of semantic nitpicking is the mark of a stupid troll and doesn't get you anywhere around here.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-02-07 02:59pm

Lord Edam wrote:It's really funny watching you whinge about nitpicking when there's five pages based entirely off your nitpicking of what I originally posted.

Like DarkStar, he nitpicks and argues semantics, then accuses you of nitpicking and arguing semantics.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-02-07 03:01pm

Thats what I already said.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-02-07 03:10pm

I think there's a valuable lesson to learn here (take note Edam):

nitpicking baaad
semantic-whoring baaaad
evidence goood

You:

"give me proof, otherwise a laser is a laser is a laser"

Others:

"here's the proof, it proves a laser isn't necessarily a laser"

You:

"give me proof, otherwise a laser is a laser is a laser"

Please try to use that second neurone you've got. Thanks.