Re: OT - Best way to handle dbdebunk

Marshall Spight wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:
>

>>Marshall Spight wrote:
>>
>>Your suggestion would have more merit if the group actually discussed
>>any real theory.

I will have to google up the thread and check it out.

>>When well over 90% of the content of the group is nonsense posted by
>>self-promoting ignorants who are unable to respond to substantive
>>critique, it seems disingenuous to suggest one may not point that out.

Here's the problem with your point: The self-promoting ignorants repeat the same gibberish even after one refutes it with substantive argument. That's what started this whole thread in the first place.

Once one demonstrates that the ignorants lack either the ability or the desire to learn anything substantive, one sees little point in addressing their arguments. They are self-promoting ignorants who want to harm others for their own benefit.

They are no different from snake-oil salesmen. Don't you think we have a duty to alert others to a 'product' that lacks effect and is harmful?

>>Given the extremely low signal to noise ratio, it seems doubly
>>disingenuous to suggest one may not point others toward the signal.

No, you didn't. I let people know that Vadim's mind is exceptional, and you chastised me for it. A lot of what little signal exists in this newsgroup comes from Vadim and Jan. Received on Wed Feb 15 2006 - 18:24:46 CET