Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:54 pm
The question is...: what is Mr. Too Stoned really doing here.
Causing trouble only. He has no other ajenda. You need see a good number of posts to see it. But once seen it becomes clear.
Here is his style from another thread: This after going on and on on on a good number of posts stating that my dad never worked with those who came up with DNA. He did. And came up with the most noted diagram. Can search Time as well.
quote Too stoned:
"...Pitcairn:
I'm somewhat satisfied by your explanation of whereby you came up with the links.
I'm glad you went through the effort of finding them, because I, despite what you may believe, am about finding the truth. Looking for Donovan's parents names was not a priority for me, as who they were isn't relevant to Donovan's ideas. The fact he mentions them to somehow validate his contentions merely merely demonstrates that his ideas can't stand on their own merits. My priorty was matching his statements with known facts.
And the truth is no matter who is parents may be, he grossly misuses scientific terms and utilizes dishonest argumentation. The proof lies in his posts and mine.
It is great you can look past all the bogus claims to find some gold in Donovan's dross, but don't expect anyone with more native skepticism than you to look beyond the demonstratbly false statements about quantum physics, chemistry, biology,math etc and the bait and switch argumentation of Donovan.
And don't expect people who know better to let Donovan's misstatements about established fact to shut up about it.
I believe Donovan's "style" as you put it, sounds awfully similiar to the cons used by every New Age Charlatan with a chip on the shoulder...
If Donovan wants to claim he can find the angle of great pyramid using a new method, great. Post all the steps and talk about implications. But he shouldn't claim his empiricism is a "mathematical proof" of his "new geometry" because to do so is demonstrably false.
I've hacked down his other misstatments elsewhere so I won't do it again here. (I'm sure that pleases you and the rest of the 'true believers") Laughing
Good luck PC, but I'm sure myself and others won't let sleeping dogs lie...:
(unquote Too Stoned)
my reply.
When Time’s science editors could not fully understand the DNA explanation (it was either Watson or Glick who they flew to Rockefeller Center) they asked my father to make a pictorial. It was one or the other that he worked with and came up with a diagram, one of a number of ways or presentation which ‘stuck’. He later stated there was a better way. Oddities of mapmaking. He was also often cited as having the only diagram of the Wankel engine that was understood. He stated that the only reason it was understood was that it was contrived, no real views would explain it.
Does not tell the full story but go to, Jeremiah Donovan at:
http://www.negia.net/~grossman/donovan.html
I gave pyrite as example of cubed crystal as it can be seen. Salt is more common, true, but would the average person know?. Too Stoned making much out of little. As if someone complaining about lint on your tie when they are pissing on your shoe.
Geometry still stands. Too Stone wimps and tries to cover.
_________________
Causing trouble only. He has no other ajenda. You need see a good number of posts to see it. But once seen it becomes clear.
Here is his style from another thread: This after going on and on on on a good number of posts stating that my dad never worked with those who came up with DNA. He did. And came up with the most noted diagram. Can search Time as well.
quote Too stoned:
"...Pitcairn:
I'm somewhat satisfied by your explanation of whereby you came up with the links.
I'm glad you went through the effort of finding them, because I, despite what you may believe, am about finding the truth. Looking for Donovan's parents names was not a priority for me, as who they were isn't relevant to Donovan's ideas. The fact he mentions them to somehow validate his contentions merely merely demonstrates that his ideas can't stand on their own merits. My priorty was matching his statements with known facts.
And the truth is no matter who is parents may be, he grossly misuses scientific terms and utilizes dishonest argumentation. The proof lies in his posts and mine.
It is great you can look past all the bogus claims to find some gold in Donovan's dross, but don't expect anyone with more native skepticism than you to look beyond the demonstratbly false statements about quantum physics, chemistry, biology,math etc and the bait and switch argumentation of Donovan.
And don't expect people who know better to let Donovan's misstatements about established fact to shut up about it.
I believe Donovan's "style" as you put it, sounds awfully similiar to the cons used by every New Age Charlatan with a chip on the shoulder...
If Donovan wants to claim he can find the angle of great pyramid using a new method, great. Post all the steps and talk about implications. But he shouldn't claim his empiricism is a "mathematical proof" of his "new geometry" because to do so is demonstrably false.
I've hacked down his other misstatments elsewhere so I won't do it again here. (I'm sure that pleases you and the rest of the 'true believers") Laughing
Good luck PC, but I'm sure myself and others won't let sleeping dogs lie...:
(unquote Too Stoned)
my reply.
When Time’s science editors could not fully understand the DNA explanation (it was either Watson or Glick who they flew to Rockefeller Center) they asked my father to make a pictorial. It was one or the other that he worked with and came up with a diagram, one of a number of ways or presentation which ‘stuck’. He later stated there was a better way. Oddities of mapmaking. He was also often cited as having the only diagram of the Wankel engine that was understood. He stated that the only reason it was understood was that it was contrived, no real views would explain it.
Does not tell the full story but go to, Jeremiah Donovan at:
http://www.negia.net/~grossman/donovan.html
I gave pyrite as example of cubed crystal as it can be seen. Salt is more common, true, but would the average person know?. Too Stoned making much out of little. As if someone complaining about lint on your tie when they are pissing on your shoe.
Geometry still stands. Too Stone wimps and tries to cover.
_________________