> Whether the other side is amused or not is irrelevant. What is clear is that other side is deliberating acting amused
Well, no.
You're saying that whether or not I am actually amused is irrelevant, because you're just deciding/alleging I am acting amused.
I'd say whether or not I was actually amused or not is certainly relevant to your claim that I am only acting amused.
FWIW, I'm amused because I recognize your behavior as that of someone quite young. I acted similar ways 20 years ago and now I think it's just kind of funny to see in other people.
> So what's the intent of acting amused? Of course it's to start a war. It's malicious.
No no no. There is no 'war' except in your mind. Again, I simply called you out for being wrong and spreading misinformation. That's it, and it normally wouldn't be a big deal to most people. But you took it really really personally and decided to go to war over it. And here we are.
> What you're doing is more of a dominance game. You play it well, but unfortunately this isn't the place to play that kind of game. It's not the place to act malicious.
Nah, there is no game, although that you see this as one is an interesting insight. I agree this is not a place to act malicious, which would include trying to claim ownership of threads and ordering people not to reply, of not taking responsibility for perpetuating misinformation and getting angry when called out for doing so, etc.
This is also meant to be a place for high quality intellectual discussion, and you betray that and bring this place down by perpetuating misinfo and linking crappy blog articles and pretending they are legitimate sources.
> You don't call people out by calling what they say a myth.
You were told you were wrong, by someone who clearly knows more on this topic than you do.
What you should have done is investigate and realize you were wrong, instead you felt the need to defend that you are right regardless of if you are or not, and so working backwards from that goal you found some crappy source you thought you could use to try and convince people. It didn't work, and now you're mad and digging your heels in. It's intellectually dishonest and this is not the place for intellectual dishonesty.
> But in addition to that your claim is flat out wrong, your evidence irrelevant and weak as well and you didn't make any effort to prove otherwise.
No sport, I'm absolutely correct. It appears you still didn't bother reading my reply because all you can see is winning/losing/right/wrong, no room for nuance.
There is a key sentence in the reply to the other user that I put effort into (since they were friendly and humble unlike yourself) that addresses that nuance, and I encourage you to re-read it with an open mind and without hate/spite in your heart.
> I offered a scientific paper and you have offered nothing else beyond that. Clearly it's because you have nothing else beyond that.
No, it's because I know I'm confident in what I claim and because you have established yourself as a bad faith actor not interested in determining objective truth only interested in trying to win and avoid being wrong, regardless of what the actual truth is.
It's much more productive, rewarding and fascinating to put effort into correct you in this discussion, it's like a lab experiment or something. How long until you will be able to let it go? Who knows, but we will find out. For science.
> Good. Walk away now. Do not respond.
If it wasn't for this arrogance I may have. But now I'm going to reply to every reply you make just to see how long you stick with it. I'm as curious as I am fascinated.
>FWIW, I'm amused because I recognize your behavior as that of someone quite young. I acted similar ways 20 years ago and now I think it's just kind of funny to see in other people.
If you are actually amused then you're a bully. This statement here shows you like to bully people younger then you and laugh in there face. You enjoy angering people and triggering them. But I don't believe this statement. I think you're not being honest here.
I don't think you're actually amused now. But we both know it's clear your intent on overtly displaying that you feel amusement.
>If it wasn't for this arrogance I may have. But now I'm going to reply to every reply you make just to see how long you stick with it. I'm as curious as I am fascinated.
Arrogance? You left out the part where I thanked you for leaving. Now you want to stay and ignite the conflict even further? Does conflict "fascinate" you? I don't think it does. I think you're only pretending.
I think it's the dominance game at play. You want to play it till you win. The problem is, I'm not playing the game. You're just playing it with yourself.
>There is a key sentence in the reply to the other user that I put effort into (since they were friendly and humble unlike yourself) that addresses that nuance, and I encourage you to re-read it with an open mind and without hate/spite in your heart.
I don't hate you. But I do think your a malicious person. I think you're not moral nor a person I would trust ever with anything. But I don't hate you.
Im not sure what your implying here as the key sentence. Why don't you stop being vague ish and just spell it out so we can explicitly point by point examine every facet of our arguments.
>Looking forward to your next reply. Cheers.
Yeah. I'm not. But I will respond. Would appreciate it also in your reply if you just stick with your point and not have to overtly display how "amused" or how "fascinated" you are at this whole thing. I already know your intent here so doing that is just repetitive on your part, thank you.
Nah not a bully. If someone is acting in a particular way that doesn't really make sense and is kind of embarrassing, and that I can relate to, then amusement is a natural reaction. There is no malice necessary or implied in such a reaction.
> I don't think you're actually amused now. But we both know it's clear your intent on overtly displaying that you feel amusement.
Well you can believe whatever you like since clearly you're disregarding anything I claim, lol.
> Arrogance? You left out the part where I thanked you for leavingv
Because it was drowned out by you arrogantly giving orders.
> Now you want to stay and ignite the conflict even further?
This isn't really a conflict, this is just something interesting. You types of people who need to have the last word, I'm always fascinated how long you will keep it up for. How long until you get bored or give up? Will you still be here replying in a month? It's fascinating.
> I think it's the dominance game at play. You want to play it till you win. The problem is, I'm not playing the game. You're just playing it with yourself.v
Again you can believe what you like, but even if we go with your hypothesis...you are clearly trying to play the 'game', or you wouldn't keep replying.
> I don't hate you. But I do think your a malicious person. I think you're not moral nor a person I would trust ever with anything. But I don't hate you.
That's good. I don't hate you or think you are malicious, just deeply insecure and unable to handle being wrong.
> Im not sure what your implying here as the key sentence. Why don't you stop being vague ish and just spell it out so we can explicitly point by point examine every facet of our arguments.
Why should I have to spell out something for you that is clear? The only reason you don't know what I'm referring to is because you glossed over my comment. Here's a hint: "not enough evidence".
> Yeah. I'm not. But I will respond.
Of course you will. You have no choice.
> Would appreciate it also in your reply if you just stick with your point and not have to overtly display how "amused" or how "fascinated" you are at this whole thing. I already know your intent here so doing that is just repetitive on your part, thank you.
That's up to you. If you make a comment only sticking to the subject and facts, then so too will my reply.
Well, no.
You're saying that whether or not I am actually amused is irrelevant, because you're just deciding/alleging I am acting amused.
I'd say whether or not I was actually amused or not is certainly relevant to your claim that I am only acting amused.
FWIW, I'm amused because I recognize your behavior as that of someone quite young. I acted similar ways 20 years ago and now I think it's just kind of funny to see in other people.
> So what's the intent of acting amused? Of course it's to start a war. It's malicious.
No no no. There is no 'war' except in your mind. Again, I simply called you out for being wrong and spreading misinformation. That's it, and it normally wouldn't be a big deal to most people. But you took it really really personally and decided to go to war over it. And here we are.
> What you're doing is more of a dominance game. You play it well, but unfortunately this isn't the place to play that kind of game. It's not the place to act malicious.
Nah, there is no game, although that you see this as one is an interesting insight. I agree this is not a place to act malicious, which would include trying to claim ownership of threads and ordering people not to reply, of not taking responsibility for perpetuating misinformation and getting angry when called out for doing so, etc.
This is also meant to be a place for high quality intellectual discussion, and you betray that and bring this place down by perpetuating misinfo and linking crappy blog articles and pretending they are legitimate sources.
> You don't call people out by calling what they say a myth.
You were told you were wrong, by someone who clearly knows more on this topic than you do.
What you should have done is investigate and realize you were wrong, instead you felt the need to defend that you are right regardless of if you are or not, and so working backwards from that goal you found some crappy source you thought you could use to try and convince people. It didn't work, and now you're mad and digging your heels in. It's intellectually dishonest and this is not the place for intellectual dishonesty.
> But in addition to that your claim is flat out wrong, your evidence irrelevant and weak as well and you didn't make any effort to prove otherwise.
No sport, I'm absolutely correct. It appears you still didn't bother reading my reply because all you can see is winning/losing/right/wrong, no room for nuance.
There is a key sentence in the reply to the other user that I put effort into (since they were friendly and humble unlike yourself) that addresses that nuance, and I encourage you to re-read it with an open mind and without hate/spite in your heart.
> I offered a scientific paper and you have offered nothing else beyond that. Clearly it's because you have nothing else beyond that.
No, it's because I know I'm confident in what I claim and because you have established yourself as a bad faith actor not interested in determining objective truth only interested in trying to win and avoid being wrong, regardless of what the actual truth is.
It's much more productive, rewarding and fascinating to put effort into correct you in this discussion, it's like a lab experiment or something. How long until you will be able to let it go? Who knows, but we will find out. For science.
> Good. Walk away now. Do not respond.
If it wasn't for this arrogance I may have. But now I'm going to reply to every reply you make just to see how long you stick with it. I'm as curious as I am fascinated.
Looking forward to your next reply. Cheers.