NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 03 2015,23:56) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 03 2015,22:45) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 03 2015,22:26) | | At least it is now obvious to unbiased readers why I started in a community where I previously published for that is interested in novel computer models, not a religiously motivated loony bin like this one that can't understand anything. |
You've got two choices, Gary: A) Stick with your oh-so-wonderful-to-you stuff in its current form, which no one can understand and which does not entice anyone to try, or B) fix its flaws, produce some supporting evidence, and rewrite it well enough that people can understand it. You've now garnered the exact same criticisms from everyone who has tried to read your stuff, from the scientists whom you hoped would fawn over your ideas in awe of their stupendousness to the religionists whom you hoped would fawn over your ideas out of gratitude for your support. None of what you want is going to happen. So, are you going to blame the messengers, or do something about why your drivel is so roundly rejected? |
You are no help at all. The only thing that you and the other creeps are good for is helping to destroy a person's life and livelihood by helping to throw discrediting insults that only prove how scientifically useless you are. |
Oh, Gary, such a tardfest.
The key question that comes out of all this is just how 'throwing discrediting insults' can result in proving that the throwers are 'scientifically useless'?
Not that anyone on earth, with the possible exception of some of the voices in your head, consider you even remotely qualified to judge what is or is not 'scientifically useful'.
You quite clearly haven't a clue about science. You demonstrate this on a daily basis.
|
