EAS is flaming us now

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-01-20 07:45pm

Colonel Olric said:

And I'm talking of PhD's in science, the only ones I respect. If somebody has a PhD in arts and brags about it, he can shovle it up his ass. He wouldn't pass the first year of an engineering course.

Does this mean art history, music, etcetera have no place in your world?

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-20 07:46pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:
The Dark wrote:Hey, hey. I'm going LibArts because I enjoy it more. If we actually still had a physics major, I'd be declaring that as my dual major tonight (IIRC, the professor just resigned). As it is, I'll probably be going economics, even if they'll refuse to admit falsifiability of their theories.
That's why I said brag about it. You can take an arts course, I respect that, obviously, but I strongly dislike people who come to me saying all courses are of the same difficulty, that they're PhD in whatever makes them smarter, etc. It's not true. The degrees are not all alike. Some are harder than others. And some colleges are harder than others.

That's why students who give up engineering have sucess in a less challenging area. And that's why some students have much more free time than others, and still pass.

Ah.

Now that I understand your post, I agree. Some people find mathematics and science much harder than language and philosophy. Others can't comprehend the liberal arts at all (the guy across the hall from me comes to mind). No person should claim that any degree makes them smarter than any other person. The degree merely means that they have completed the requirements to get a little piece of paper that says someone thinks they've learned something. I don't consider any degree (of the same level) to necessarily be intrinsically more difficult than any other, it all depends on the individual's capabilities.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-01-20 07:52pm

To all students of arts: I was unfortunate in my choice of words, and I apologize.

What I meant was what I said in the second post. Some degrees are harder than others, and I stand by that afirmation.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-01-20 07:53pm

Sorry, Now that I read on, I see your point. And that's my first double post.

What am I to think with "Error, website not responding" when sometimes it posts, sometimes not.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-01-20 07:58pm

The Dark wrote:Now that I understand your post, I agree. Some people find mathematics and science much harder than language and philosophy. Others can't comprehend the liberal arts at all (the guy across the hall from me comes to mind). No person should claim that any degree makes them smarter than any other person. The degree merely means that they have completed the requirements to get a little piece of paper that says someone thinks they've learned something. I don't consider any degree (of the same level) to necessarily be intrinsically more difficult than any other, it all depends on the individual's capabilities.

But that's not quite true. In my first two years of college, I basically learned everything in math that a student studying to be a math highschool teacher does in four. I can legally teach at schools, btw.

By comparision, my exames are harder that his. How can you say the degrees are equal? They're not. I could certainly take his degree, but there's no evidence he could take mine.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-20 08:15pm

The Dark wrote:Ah. Now that I understand your post, I agree. Some people find mathematics and science much harder than language and philosophy. Others can't comprehend the liberal arts at all (the guy across the hall from me comes to mind). No person should claim that any degree makes them smarter than any other person. The degree merely means that they have completed the requirements to get a little piece of paper that says someone thinks they've learned something. I don't consider any degree (of the same level) to necessarily be intrinsically more difficult than any other, it all depends on the individual's capabilities.

I don't agree at all. I'm a physics major, and I could walk into mostly any philosophy or English class and walk out with an A (I aced English Comp II last semester, and I didn't even do all the work, but the work I did do made everyone else's look like shit); so could most of the other students in the physics curriculum. I'd challenge you to find an English student who could ace a calculus course, much less get one of the highest grades in the class.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-20 08:18pm

I walked into a third-year History course in university without ever having taken a prior history course and got an A. Now let's see a third-year liberal arts major walk into a third-year engineering thermodynamics course and get an A. I know it sounds snobby, but it's also a fact: liberal arts is easier. if you doubt that, I recommend you check out two important facts:

1) The admissions criteria for arts faculties as opposed to science or engineering

2) The failure rate for arts faculties as opposed to science or engineering.

How many people flunk out of liberal arts? Show me that it's as hard to survive liberal arts as engineering.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-20 08:29pm

BTW, Olrik did make a good point earlier about how even the most impressive degree doesn't necessarily make you a genius or infallible. My own father has a PhD in nuclear physics but I've had to argue with him for a very long time over a simple matter of kinematics before he finally admitted he was wrong.

Ultimately, a degree only serves to put the burden of proof on the other party. In other words, if the guy with the superior and applicable degree says something is true, the guy with no education must now provide sources and evidence to prove him wrong, because the guy with the superior background implicitly has superior knowledge and expertise in the subject matter.

It doesn't matter in any case; I would like these EAS pinheads point to the technical pages on my site where I say "I have an engineering degree, therefore I'm right and I don't have to provide evidence or reasoning", since that's the strawman personal attack that they're selling to everyone who will listen.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-20 09:02pm

FYI many of the members of the EAS Forum just want this to go away. They want a truce on the matter and for flames to cease going in either direction.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-20 09:05pm

Alyeska wrote:FYI many of the members of the EAS Forum just want this to go away. They want a truce on the matter and for flames to cease going in either direction.

So that Bernd Schneider can continue trash-talking me in peace the way he has for years, right?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-20 09:08pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Alyeska wrote:FYI many of the members of the EAS Forum just want this to go away. They want a truce on the matter and for flames to cease going in either direction.
So that Bernd Schneider can continue trash-talking me in peace the way he has for years, right?

That would not consitute a truce. IMO if you have a disagreement with Bernd, then leave it a disagreement with him and not the board in general. Likewise they can disagree with you, but not the entire board.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-20 09:10pm

Mike, why don't you just post your e-mail debates with this guy. He can't object to that, and it would show what you're talking about. That way, you wouldn't be violating the truce, and you would still get a chance to defend yourself against his libel by showing what actually happened.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-20 09:12pm

Alyeska wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Alyeska wrote:FYI many of the members of the EAS Forum just want this to go away. They want a truce on the matter and for flames to cease going in either direction.
So that Bernd Schneider can continue trash-talking me in peace the way he has for years, right?
That would not consitute a truce. IMO if you have a disagreement with Bernd, then leave it a disagreement with him and not the board in general.

Fair enough. I'm just annoyed that I never publicly talk about him and he's apparently been slamming me the whole time since our E-mail exchange.

Likewise they can disagree with you, but not the entire board.

Frankly, they started the flaming (the "ravening orcs" rhetoric was hardly provoked by any similar rhetoric on our side), and for them to call a truce without even bothering to come here, say it in person, or confess that there was anything wrong with their attitude does not exactly impress me.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-20 09:13pm

Hopefuly in three years, I'll have my Bacholer's in Psychology(Thank you Navy!) and I can add a nice pretty Engineering Degree up there too(Which unforuntalty the Navy gets to pick but picks up the Entire Tab, Either Appled Physics or E.E)

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-20 09:15pm

Hmm, maybe I can put my study of Human Communications to use and figure out where the communication broke down between Bernd and Mike.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-20 09:16pm

Master of Ossus wrote:Mike, why don't you just post your e-mail debates with this guy. He can't object to that, and it would show what you're talking about. That way, you wouldn't be violating the truce, and you would still get a chance to defend yourself against his libel by showing what actually happened.

I'll have to go see if I still have it on file. I hope so; the "big fireplace" comment stuck in my mind as particularly stupid and inadvertently funny, but perhaps it would be better to simply challenge him to a fresh debate, since he's been talking trash all this time and seems to think I'm full of shit.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-20 09:18pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:Mike, why don't you just post your e-mail debates with this guy. He can't object to that, and it would show what you're talking about. That way, you wouldn't be violating the truce, and you would still get a chance to defend yourself against his libel by showing what actually happened.
I'll have to go see if I still have it on file. I hope so; the "big fireplace" comment stuck in my mind as particularly stupid and inadvertently funny, but perhaps it would be better to simply challenge him to a fresh debate, since he's been talking trash all this time and seems to think I'm full of shit.

Excellent. I would recommend laying the Imperial Smackdown on yet another Trek fool.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-01-20 09:22pm

can I hope for additions to the hatemail page then?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-20 09:22pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:can I hope for additions to the hatemail page then?

That would constitute fanning the flames. I would recomend against it.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2003-01-20 09:25pm

Darth Wong wrote: Gee, why don't we just shut down the board then? Do I really need to remind you of the site motto? Maybe they hang their hats on some pretension of being morally superior or more dignified; we don't. We hang our hat on having the facts and logic to back us up, not on style over substance fallacies.

This reminds me of Howard Stern's battle with the FCC. He says he's been fined over 2 million dollars by putting indecency over the airwaves, demeaning the morals of the community. He then points out that the "community" he broadcasts in (New York) has clergymen who sodomize young boys, cops who beat and sodomize prisoners, people who hunt down and kill orthodox Jews in the streets, etc.

When was the last time anyone's seen "shock jock" Stern, with his filthy mouth, and (allegedly) "low" morals in the newspaper for soliciting prostitution, like say, Jimmy Swaggart? Or cheating on his wife (he's been divorced two years now, though) like say...Jesse Jackson, or Johnny Cochran? By all accounts, Stern is a loving father who we hardly ever seen in the tabloids.

My fiancee is a Christian. She's learned to deal with the fact that I'm an atheist (I say it openly now, Mike!

). I curse a blue streak when angry, have no trouble finding humor in the human condition, no matter how down trodden or disabled the subject is.

Yet she also has to admit that I've treated her better than anyone she's been with who was just as church-going as she was. She admits that I'm a better human being overall than MANY of the Christians she's known.

Fuckin' A.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-20 09:25pm

Alyeska wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:can I hope for additions to the hatemail page then?
That would constitute fanning the flames. I would recomend against it.

What do you mean? How is adding the Bernd Schneider debate to the "Debate" section of the Hate Mail page supposed to be analogous to "fanning the flames?" I find that unreasonable. If Schneider didn't want to have his posts published, he A) should not have had a debate with someone who published e-mails on a page entitled "Hate Mail."

B) Should have told Mike not to publish his name and e-mail. Mike grants anonymity, but now it is too late for that.

C) Should NOT have gone around talking trash about Mike and this board behind Mike's back for the space of YEARS.

Mike's actions are more than justified. In fact, it's not even really in retaliation. It's part of Mike's stated website policies.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-20 09:26pm

That would constitute fanning the flames. I would recomend against it.

Concure, at least until the Debate is over

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-20 09:28pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:can I hope for additions to the hatemail page then?
That would constitute fanning the flames. I would recomend against it.
What do you mean? How is adding the Bernd Schneider debate to the "Debate" section of the Hate Mail page supposed to be analogous to "fanning the flames?" I find that unreasonable. If Schneider didn't want to have his posts published, he A) should not have had a debate with someone who published e-mails on a page entitled "Hate Mail."

B) Should have told Mike not to publish his name and e-mail. Mike grants anonymity, but now it is too late for that.

C) Should NOT have gone around talking trash about Mike and this board behind Mike's back for the space of YEARS.

Mike's actions are more than justified. In fact, it's not even really in retaliation. It's part of Mike's stated website policies.

The fact that the Debate Section is listed within the Hate-Mail section would be an ignition point for potential conflict.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-20 09:29pm

Alyeska wrote:The fact that the Debate Section is listed within the Hate-Mail section would be an ignition point for potential conflict.

You have to be kidding me. Short of altering Mike's entire website (which is unreasonable), how do they want the debate published?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-20 09:33pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Alyeska wrote:The fact that the Debate Section is listed within the Hate-Mail section would be an ignition point for potential conflict.
You have to be kidding me. Short of altering Mike's entire website (which is unreasonable), how do they want the debate published?

Is this a future debate, or an old debate? If its the old debate, they might not want it published.

And no, I am not kidding. I myself was more then a little irritated with Mike when he started placing his debates in the Hate-Mail section. It sends a message to the person your debating that you don't respect them at all. Intentional or not, that is how the people on the recieving end read the situation. If Mike retitled his section Hate-Mail & Debates (and changed the URL), there is a much smaller chance of there being future conflict over how it was published. Also leaving out comentary helps. Letting each sides arguments stand alone as is.