StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thats what I already said.

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.