JodoForce wrote:AGAIN:
The facts of this matter are simple: you didn't say WHAT effects, on WHAT.
Since this THREAD SUBJECT is about massless particles and turbolasers and gravity, that was fucking obvious and you know it. You're just trying to weasel out of admitting you're a nitpicker.
I wrote to ASK you to provide the context for what you were saying, adding that I couldn't find the context myself because I couldn't find words to link between what you said here and what you said in the TL page, FOR EXAMPLE, 'immeasurable'--and so I 'don't know what you're talking about'. God, will you ever understand?
Yes, I overestimated your intelligence. I was under the impression that if someone pointed out that it's hair-splitting to differentiate between immeasurably small effects and no effects, you would get the main thrust of the point instead of looking for those exact phrases in a year-old page.
I understand now, but understood no part of this before this post, for the simple reason that you deliberately withheld information regarding the ICS2 explanation when it was clear that I have not seen it.
Wrong. The ICS2 doesn't spell that out either; it is a ramification of the theory.
I failed to recognize this for the simple reason that I do not own the ICS book, and you deliberately withheld information regarding the ICS explanation depite repeated requests for it, instead choosing to use your information advantage to humiliate me. This shows you to be a despicable character, whatever your technical qualifications.
I love the way you invent accusations and excuses for yet more character attacks. You still don't have a copy of the ICS2, yet now you're accusing me of witholding information from it in order to make you look stupid. Precisely what have I witheld?
Utterly pathetic. The only person who's made you look bad here is you.
You could post a poll and see who thinks a single sentence about the ICS2 explanation could make all of the above 'obvious'.
Since nobody obviously gives a shit about this little piss-war but the two of us, I don't see the point. But go ahead and post that poll if you want.
I can't help but repeat myself like a stuck record because this is the clearest explanation possible, and you continue to ignore it.
Screaming that someone should have explicitly said he was talking about gravity IN A THREAD ABOUT GRAVITY EFFECTS ON TURBOLASERS is ridiculous and you know it. You're pathetic.
<snip repetition of earlier points>
What I referred to by 'pulling things out of thin air' is when you twisted the meaning of my first reply to you into a 'nitpick'. I never admitted that it WAS a nitpick; I was merely saying that, if you insisted on calling it a nitpick, it's still better than what YOU have done.
Or what you imagine me to have done. You accuse me of unfairly judging you because you missed the whole point (hair-splitting) in favour of looking through my pages for the exact phrases I posted, as if I had claimed them to be in there in the first place (a rather ironic response to an accusation of hair-splitting). Then you accuse me of witholding information from the ICS2 even though you're just ASSUMING that any ramification of the theory which you couldn't figure out on your own must have been painstakingly spelled out in the ICS2 and then deceptively witheld by me. Not to mention your shameless attempt to change the subject from turbolaser mechanisms to "precisely how did you word your year-old page". You're simply unbelievable.
The major characteristic of a nitpick is that it is a criticism on a minor point; this has NOTHING to do with whether it is logically correct at all. In fact, the reason why nitpicks are so annoying is because they often *seem* to be valid because they ARE logical, but too inconsequential to be useful to the flow of the debate. Thus even if I *were* nitpicking (which I'm not) that says nothing about my grasp of logic.
Yes it does. The nitpick is an example of the red-herring fallacy, which is a fallacy of distraction. The fact that you don't recognize this is simply proof that you ARE, in fact, ignorant of logic.
This 'concession accepted' bullshit may mean something if you were not the perpetrator of gross violations of debating rules in the first place.
Please continue making an ass out of yourself by assuming I've witheld information. You're becoming quite amusing. I particularly like the way you think you've been so grievously wronged, and you keep ranting that a poll should be started on your persecution. Please, by all means, go ahead and start one.
Your accusation of my 'endless red-herring nitpick bullshit' is the REAL red-herring bullshit here; you started the argument about the numbered list by making an oblique fake rebuttal and gross insult ('Do you or don't you stand by your first-choice explanation of turbolasers?' 'Are you or are you not too fucking stupid to recognize when someone is throwing out a bunch of hypotheses?')
This argument has been one false assumption after another on your part. You claimed that because I happened to list the hypotheses in a certain order, this
must mean that I had a hierarchy of credibility in mind. You also attempted to change the subject from "TL mechanism" to "what Mike Wong said a year ago before the ICS2 came out", which is a huge red-herring fallacy. That kind of chicanery gets flames from me, and I don't apologize for it. Blatant attempts to change the subject or put words in someone's mouth are fallacious and unacceptable, and if you don't like being insulted for it, you shouldn't do it.
instead of admitting that that your hypotheses in the TL page are outdated (although you used this point for further insults in a later post).
Everyone knows it's outdated; it was written years ago and last updated more than a year ago. The point was that you tried to change the subject from an abstract discussion of TL's to my outdated webpage, and I called you on it. Too bad. Boo hoo.
And you cannot argue that the date would tell somebody that it is outdated: if theorizing about the nature of TLs have been stagnant (as it may well be, the first movies having been out more than 20 years ago), a one-year-old page may still be current.
The appearance of new information (AOTC and the ICS2) obviously means that the situation is not stagnant. The first information about physics was out hundreds of years ago; does this mean physics is stagnant?
You're right, because *I* haven't said anything about the tracer being massive, either. I'm only saying that it is travelling at subliminal velocity, the evidence for which abounds in canon films.
And I provided an explanation which you ignored. If you had addressed it instead of changing the subject to "did you use a numbered or bulleted list on your year-old webpage", we wouldn't be having this screaming match. Just like your attempt to change the subject from your hair-splitting to "did you put that exact phrase on your webpage last year".
The thing is ANYTHING travelling at the speed shown in the movies would have been affected by gravity--massive objects, photons slowed down to 1000km/h, you name it--without some kind of field effect cancelling out the effect.
There you go again with your magic "field effect". Tell me, what is this "field effect cancelling out the effect?"
If this explanation is so obvious that anyone can think of it by himself, you must have been unbelievably dense, since you started theorizing about TLs at least as early as 1998.08.01 and STILL hadn't come up with the right answer by 2002.03.05.
The ICS2 wasn't out by then, dumb-ass. It's obvious with current information.
If you could accuse me of being stupid and ignorant for not thinking of this explanation in a week, I can accuse you of being ten times more stupid and brain-dead for not coming up with it in close to 4 years.
Go on, please continue making yourself look like an idiot. I wonder what's dumber: assuming that I've been working on that page daily for 4 years (in order to compare with your daily activity on this thread) or assuming that a page written before the ICS2 came out must indicate stupidity because its author did not have precognition of the ICS2's contents when he wrote it.
I don't consider it any shame to not understand a cryptic one-sentence compression of the 'explanation'. Again, you theorized about it for close to 4 years and still hadn't come up with the current explanation.
New information has come out since then, dumb-ass. What part of this are you too stupid to understand? As soon as the ICS2 explanation became official, that changed the landscape. Do you recognize how this works?
See above, you brain-dead asshole. (going by your standards)
Your inability to put two and two together once the explanation is presented is not my fault. The visible pulse moving along a lightspeed beam as exemplified in the DS superlaser is all the information you needed to know; everything else after that is deductive, and hence apparently over your head.
May I remind you that after close to 4 years of theorizing, such a field effect explanation was still SECOND on your list of probable explanations for TLs. Or maybe even tied for first, since you insist that the numbered list does not denote any order of preference.
Actually, my favourite explanation until the ICS2 came out was the "tiny level-flight projectile" explanation, but I couldn't find a way to make it
necessary, and the ICS2 weakened it considerably. But please, feel free to go on making an ass of yourself by piling assumption upon assumption.
That's the truth, regardless of your every attempt to stain my words. Except for holding the better theory you have been the superior asshole at every turn in this argument.
By not explicitly pointing out that my point had to do with gravity in a thread about gravity? By not lying down when you tried to change the subject from present data about TL's to what I wrote a year ago
before the ICS2 came out? Fine, go ahead. Tell yourself you've been the white knight here. Sounds like you desperately need the validation anyway.
It was within my rights to delve into this debate after you made a gross insult in reply to a passing reference to it.
Would you like some cheese with that whine? Gross insults in response to red-herring nitpicks and blatant attempts to change the subject are par for the course.
Your holding the correct technical explanation does not negate the fact that you have been wrong about nearly everything else in this debate while being an asshole pretending you were not wrong.
I had no idea it was possible to hold the superior theory while simultaneously being wrong. "Tis just a flesh wound, eh?"
Instead of bringing out your correct technical explanation you preference for posting seems to be to draw 'insults' out of thin air and bog your opponent down in a game of mud-slinging, THEN bring out the correct answer and try to make everyone believe that somewhere in that mess you must have already brought out the correct answer clearly many times and that your opponent must be an idiot to continue debating--when nothing of the sort had happened.
No, the correct explanation was staring you in the face right from the beginning, but because I insulted you after you nitpicked my phrasing with that "immeasurable" bit, you immediately went into smart-ass mode with comments like "
Well DW, can you READ? Well DW, Can you READ? And present your argument more clearly rather than use ad homs like a stupid troll? I guess I gave you more credit than you deserved." If you choose to escalate hostilities and then whine about the inevitable consequences afterwards, you will have a hard time finding sympathizers.
Fuck you.
So you admit that "field effect cancelling out the effect" doesn't make any sense, but you still refuse to admit defeat because I wasn't nice to you when you were too stupid to apply deductive reasoning to the ICS2 theory when it was pointed out to you. Sorry, but when people come around here and demand that everything be spelled out for them, we call them stupid. If you don't like it, leave.
Fun? Flamewars are painful, dude. Seriously, this is like waving a giant GPS transponder around in Iraq and asking the United States Military to launch 40 cruise missiles at your face. Regardless of whether you make a good argument or not, the fact that you choose to perpetuate napalm only detracts from the theoretical viability of this thread. Any reasoning eventually is incinerated by the flames, and the thread is either deleted, forgotten, or not looked at in close detail because of all the venom.
