You have to see how you are being seen. You are no better than the guy who says "There are no zebras. Watch the video." No, not unless you can articulate in a sentence or two what your claim is and why it makes sense. I assume you know all about slippery soap boxes from personal experience?
You're still missing the point and giving 'soap box' advice at the same time. Your advice is unwelcome. You seem not to be an advocate of Dale Carnegie.
Well, I don't suffer fools gladly, as one acquaintance described me. I have worked for 40 years in advanced weapon systems design, producing over 40 technical reports and 400 technical memoranda, and making briefings I can't count. Including teaching South Korean government officials a 2-week crash course in system engineering. I know whereof I speak. And what I am saying is true: if you can't express the essence of your point in a few sentences, you don't really understand it. (It is a clue. You might want to try and do it.)
I also am an astute observer of the exposition process. I have noticed, without exception, that the crank method of argument is to make categorical claims---and refer the reader to a video or videos. Videos are audio-visual performances that cannot be scrutinized after the fact (except very laboriously). They are a moving target having no references or citations that can be checked. They also take a longer time (factor of 3) to receive the subject matter, which makes them tiresome and irritating. There is a reason why the crank community does not want to write anything down for publication: it would not withstand close scrutiny. It suffices to impress the aspiring ignorant, those who do not know but like to think they are capable of knowing. But, not knowing to begin with, they fall like wheat to the scythe of sophisms and higher levels of ignorance. Flat Earth. Moon Hoax. Chemtrails. It is all depressingly the same.
So, I am holding you to a higher standard---a standard that is merely minimal in my profession. Get used to it. Live up to it. You will be the better for it.
"I have worked for 40 years in advanced weapon systems design, producing over 40 technical reports and 400 technical memoranda, and making briefings I can't count. Including teaching South Korean government officials a 2-week crash course in system engineering. I know whereof I speak."
This is pretty sound proof of not being able to communicate or write. Trying to validate being an authority is in my experience an easy identifier of the classic fraudster and huckster. They love to broadcast their 'claimed' credentials. Buyer beware! As I mentioned earlier, the central thesis I made was found in the 1st paragraph. Because you never identified this, you get a failing grade for comprehension. And your post gets another 'F' for not being convincing and an obvious fraudster. Please go away.
Well, you wouldn't be able to prove it from my fitness reports. I was uniformly recognized as a skilled communicator. My swan song was to completely re-edit an otherwise losing proposal for the Airborne Laser program---which we won, a $1.4 billion dollar contract. And you can't prove it from our exchange, in which I have been scrupulously clear.
Your "thesis" was only a claim that the photos were false (with no justification for thinking that ALL the many photos were false). Anyone can make a groundless claim. You had the obligation to at least explain the key reason one should accept your claim. All this talk, and you still haven't done it. The only fraudster here is you, who refuse to explain in a few sentences why we should reject the existence of viruses. (This is not to be conflated with cases where the ascription of illness to a virus was a mistake, as Peter Duesberg argued about HIV and AIDS.)
It is really funny on the internet how some people get their backs up when confronted with solid credentials, and retreat into a "You're no authority (yet, I am)" argument and think their passing judgement on someone means anything to a proper adult.
You have to see how you are being seen. You are no better than the guy who says "There are no zebras. Watch the video." No, not unless you can articulate in a sentence or two what your claim is and why it makes sense. I assume you know all about slippery soap boxes from personal experience?
You're still missing the point and giving 'soap box' advice at the same time. Your advice is unwelcome. You seem not to be an advocate of Dale Carnegie.
Well, I don't suffer fools gladly, as one acquaintance described me. I have worked for 40 years in advanced weapon systems design, producing over 40 technical reports and 400 technical memoranda, and making briefings I can't count. Including teaching South Korean government officials a 2-week crash course in system engineering. I know whereof I speak. And what I am saying is true: if you can't express the essence of your point in a few sentences, you don't really understand it. (It is a clue. You might want to try and do it.)
I also am an astute observer of the exposition process. I have noticed, without exception, that the crank method of argument is to make categorical claims---and refer the reader to a video or videos. Videos are audio-visual performances that cannot be scrutinized after the fact (except very laboriously). They are a moving target having no references or citations that can be checked. They also take a longer time (factor of 3) to receive the subject matter, which makes them tiresome and irritating. There is a reason why the crank community does not want to write anything down for publication: it would not withstand close scrutiny. It suffices to impress the aspiring ignorant, those who do not know but like to think they are capable of knowing. But, not knowing to begin with, they fall like wheat to the scythe of sophisms and higher levels of ignorance. Flat Earth. Moon Hoax. Chemtrails. It is all depressingly the same.
So, I am holding you to a higher standard---a standard that is merely minimal in my profession. Get used to it. Live up to it. You will be the better for it.
This is pretty sound proof of not being able to communicate or write. Trying to validate being an authority is in my experience an easy identifier of the classic fraudster and huckster. They love to broadcast their 'claimed' credentials. Buyer beware! As I mentioned earlier, the central thesis I made was found in the 1st paragraph. Because you never identified this, you get a failing grade for comprehension. And your post gets another 'F' for not being convincing and an obvious fraudster. Please go away.
Well, you wouldn't be able to prove it from my fitness reports. I was uniformly recognized as a skilled communicator. My swan song was to completely re-edit an otherwise losing proposal for the Airborne Laser program---which we won, a $1.4 billion dollar contract. And you can't prove it from our exchange, in which I have been scrupulously clear.
Your "thesis" was only a claim that the photos were false (with no justification for thinking that ALL the many photos were false). Anyone can make a groundless claim. You had the obligation to at least explain the key reason one should accept your claim. All this talk, and you still haven't done it. The only fraudster here is you, who refuse to explain in a few sentences why we should reject the existence of viruses. (This is not to be conflated with cases where the ascription of illness to a virus was a mistake, as Peter Duesberg argued about HIV and AIDS.)
It is really funny on the internet how some people get their backs up when confronted with solid credentials, and retreat into a "You're no authority (yet, I am)" argument and think their passing judgement on someone means anything to a proper adult.