Question for John McAdams

[Robert Harris]

Why did you approve the following statement by cdddraftsman?

"He's a typical CTer , non-scientific , 'Clueless in Dallas' begging
for attention by using the opposite of the scientific method to draw
attention to himself thus trapping a few fly's in his web along the way."






Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article

Post by Robert Harris
Why did you approve the following statement by cdddraftsman?
"He's a typical CTer , non-scientific , 'Clueless in Dallas' begging
for attention by using the opposite of the scientific method to draw
attention to himself thus trapping a few fly's in his web along the way."

I really would like a reply to this, .john.

You obviously, have a totally different set of rules for people like
Reitzes and CD, who post personal attacks almost exclusively, than you
have for people who disagree with you.


Robert Harris

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by Robert Harris
In article

Post by Robert Harris
Why did you approve the following statement by cdddraftsman?
"He's  a typical CTer , non-scientific , 'Clueless in Dallas' begging
for attention by using the opposite of the scientific method to draw
attention to himself thus trapping a few fly's in his web along the way."

I really would like a reply to this, .john.
You obviously, have a totally different set of rules for people like
Reitzes and CD, who post personal attacks almost exclusively, than you
have for people who disagree with you.
Robert Harris

Go Bob. Stick up for yourself, there is a lot of mud slinging that
comes from the dark side. However, you are probably getting to them
and that's why they do it.

[claviger]

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Robert Harris
In article

Post by Robert Harris
Why did you approve the following statement by cdddraftsman?
"He's  a typical CTer , non-scientific , 'Clueless in Dallas' begging
for attention by using the opposite of the scientific method to draw
attention to himself thus trapping a few fly's in his web along the way."

I really would like a reply to this, .john.
You obviously, have a totally different set of rules for people like
Reitzes and CD, who post personal attacks almost exclusively, than you
have for people who disagree with you.
Robert Harris

Go Bob. Stick up for yourself, there is a lot of mud slinging that
comes from the dark side. However, you are probably getting to them
and that's why they do it.

McAdams recently protected you in a major way thalia. As moderator he
did you a big favor.

[Bud]

Post by Robert Harris
In article

Post by Robert Harris
Why did you approve the following statement by cdddraftsman?
"He's a typical CTer , non-scientific , 'Clueless in Dallas' begging
for attention by using the opposite of the scientific method to draw
attention to himself thus trapping a few fly's in his web along the way."

I really would like a reply to this, .john.
You obviously, have a totally different set of rules for people like
Reitzes and CD, who post personal attacks almost exclusively, than you
have for people who disagree with you.

I`m not McAdams, but I think one possibility is that the remarks
were directed at your approach and methodology concerning the case,
and not at you personally.

Either that, or it was allowed because he put you into a group, and
then disparaged the group he put you into, and not you individually.

But I`m not McAdams, I`m not sure. I winced when I saw it, and I
thought it over the line for here (fortunately not my call). But,
recently you called on me to THINK, implying this is something I don`t
do regularly, which in a tightly moderated group might not be allowed.
I really don`t want my posts returned for re-writes over piddly shit,
do you?

Post by Robert Harris
Robert Harris

[John McAdams]

Post by Bud

Post by Robert Harris
In article

Post by Robert Harris
Why did you approve the following statement by cdddraftsman?
"He's a typical CTer , non-scientific , 'Clueless in Dallas' begging
for attention by using the opposite of the scientific method to draw
attention to himself thus trapping a few fly's in his web along the way."

I really would like a reply to this, .john.
You obviously, have a totally different set of rules for people like
Reitzes and CD, who post personal attacks almost exclusively, than you
have for people who disagree with you.

I`m not McAdams, but I think one possibility is that the remarks
were directed at your approach and methodology concerning the case,
and not at you personally.
Either that, or it was allowed because he put you into a group, and
then disparaged the group he put you into, and not you individually.
But I`m not McAdams, I`m not sure. I winced when I saw it, and I
thought it over the line for here (fortunately not my call). But,
recently you called on me to THINK, implying this is something I don`t
do regularly, which in a tightly moderated group might not be allowed.
I really don`t want my posts returned for re-writes over piddly shit,
do you?

You are pretty much right on all points. As far as I can tell (Harris
didn't leave much context) we let get away with some excessively tough
rhetoric.

However, claiming that Harris does not properly use the scientific
method is perfectly fine.

Further, we moderators will usually let posters be accused of doing
bad things ("misleading people," "trapping a few fly's in his web") if
there is no claim of bad faith. Thus "misleading people" usually
passes, but "intentionally misleading people" would get rejected.

So it was out of bounds, but not so far out of bounds as Harris
thinks.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Robert Harris
In article

Post by Robert Harris
Why did you approve the following statement by cdddraftsman?
"He's  a typical CTer , non-scientific , 'Clueless in Dallas' begging
for attention by using the opposite of the scientific method to draw
attention to himself thus trapping a few fly's in his web along the way."

I really would like a reply to this, .john.
You obviously, have a totally different set of rules for people like
Reitzes and CD, who post personal attacks almost exclusively, than you
have for people who disagree with you.

  I`m not McAdams, but I think one possibility is that the remarks
were directed at your approach and methodology concerning the case,
and not at you personally.
 Either that, or it was allowed because he put you into a group, and
then disparaged the group he put you into, and not you individually.
  But I`m not McAdams, I`m not sure. I winced when I saw it, and I
thought it over the line for here (fortunately not my call). But,
recently you called on me to THINK, implying this is something I don`t
do regularly, which in a tightly moderated group might not be allowed.
I really don`t want my posts returned for re-writes over piddly shit,
do you?

You are pretty much right on all points.  As far as I can tell (Harris
didn't leave much context) we let get away with some excessively tough
rhetoric.
However, claiming that Harris does not properly use the scientific
method is perfectly fine.
Further, we moderators will usually let posters be accused of doing
bad things ("misleading people," "trapping a few fly's in his web") if
there is no claim of bad faith.  Thus "misleading people" usually
passes, but "intentionally misleading people" would get rejected.
So it was out of bounds, but not so far out of bounds as Harris
thinks.

Of course that begs the question of the WCR apologists misleading people
in order to trap a few flies in their web, not to mention not having any
use for a scientific method.

[claviger]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Robert Harris
In article

Post by Robert Harris
Why did you approve the following statement by cdddraftsman?
"He's  a typical CTer , non-scientific , 'Clueless in Dallas' begging
for attention by using the opposite of the scientific method to draw
attention to himself thus trapping a few fly's in his web along the way."

I really would like a reply to this, .john.
You obviously, have a totally different set of rules for people like
Reitzes and CD, who post personal attacks almost exclusively, than you
have for people who disagree with you.

  I`m not McAdams, but I think one possibility is that the remarks
were directed at your approach and methodology concerning the case,
and not at you personally.
 Either that, or it was allowed because he put you into a group, and
then disparaged the group he put you into, and not you individually.
  But I`m not McAdams, I`m not sure. I winced when I saw it, and I
thought it over the line for here (fortunately not my call). But,
recently you called on me to THINK, implying this is something I don`t
do regularly, which in a tightly moderated group might not be allowed.
I really don`t want my posts returned for re-writes over piddly shit,
do you?

You are pretty much right on all points.  As far as I can tell (Harris
didn't leave much context) we let get away with some excessively tough
rhetoric.
However, claiming that Harris does not properly use the scientific
method is perfectly fine.
Further, we moderators will usually let posters be accused of doing
bad things ("misleading people," "trapping a few fly's in his web") if
there is no claim of bad faith.  Thus "misleading people" usually
passes, but "intentionally misleading people" would get rejected.
So it was out of bounds, but not so far out of bounds as Harris
thinks.

Of course that begs the question of the WCR apologists misleading people
in order to trap a few flies in their web, not to mention not having any
use for a scientific method.

Quite the contrary. The Scientific Method, which is neutral, is
consistently proving CT theories and criticism to be inaccurate. Many
scientists involved in research projects don't seem to care how the
experiments turn out, which is the way it should be. Gary Mack has the
intellectual honesty to admit he might be wrong after all these years of
leaning CT. Field testing has answered fundamental questions he had about
the case. He doesn't let pride of authorship inhibit his quest for the
truth. Mack was the one who thought he discovered Badgeman behind the
fence, Gordon Arnold was credible, and also embraced the "acoustic
evidence". Most people are not big enough to admit they were wrong. It is
a tribute to Gary Mack he can accept evidence produced by the Scientific
Method and adjust his opinion accordingly.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by claviger

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by John McAdams

Post by Bud

Post by Robert Harris
In article

Post by Robert Harris
Why did you approve the following statement by cdddraftsman?
"He's a typical CTer , non-scientific , 'Clueless in Dallas' begging
for attention by using the opposite of the scientific method to draw
attention to himself thus trapping a few fly's in his web along the way."

I really would like a reply to this, .john.
You obviously, have a totally different set of rules for people like
Reitzes and CD, who post personal attacks almost exclusively, than you
have for people who disagree with you.

I`m not McAdams, but I think one possibility is that the remarks
were directed at your approach and methodology concerning the case,
and not at you personally.
Either that, or it was allowed because he put you into a group, and
then disparaged the group he put you into, and not you individually.
But I`m not McAdams, I`m not sure. I winced when I saw it, and I
thought it over the line for here (fortunately not my call). But,
recently you called on me to THINK, implying this is something I don`t
do regularly, which in a tightly moderated group might not be allowed.
I really don`t want my posts returned for re-writes over piddly shit,
do you?

You are pretty much right on all points. As far as I can tell (Harris
didn't leave much context) we let get away with some excessively tough
rhetoric.
However, claiming that Harris does not properly use the scientific
method is perfectly fine.
Further, we moderators will usually let posters be accused of doing
bad things ("misleading people," "trapping a few fly's in his web") if
there is no claim of bad faith. Thus "misleading people" usually
passes, but "intentionally misleading people" would get rejected.
So it was out of bounds, but not so far out of bounds as Harris
thinks.

Of course that begs the question of the WCR apologists misleading people
in order to trap a few flies in their web, not to mention not having any
use for a scientific method.

Quite the contrary. The Scientific Method, which is neutral, is
consistently proving CT theories and criticism to be inaccurate. Many
scientists involved in research projects don't seem to care how the
experiments turn out, which is the way it should be. Gary Mack has the
intellectual honesty to admit he might be wrong after all these years of
leaning CT. Field testing has answered fundamental questions he had about
the case. He doesn't let pride of authorship inhibit his quest for the
truth. Mack was the one who thought he discovered Badgeman behind the
fence, Gordon Arnold was credible, and also embraced the "acoustic
evidence". Most people are not big enough to admit they were wrong. It is
a tribute to Gary Mack he can accept evidence produced by the Scientific
Method and adjust his opinion accordingly.

As far as I know, Gary Mack has never admitted that he was wrong about
the acoustical evidence or the existence of Badge Man. Absent a direct
quote we have to assuming that you are misrepresenting him for political
advantage.