Look at this shit from iii, one of the supposedly more sane members of Wikipediocracy.
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 76#p301176
(as predicted in an earlier version, Micheal Cockram did indeed delete this post, proving he is what we say he is). Science!
I've been in direct contact with iii at Wikipediocracy, and I don't recall him ever being prepared to accept my long standing invitation to seriously critique my beliefs on a fundamental level.I love to have straightforward conversations with true believers about their beliefs, but twenty years of experience shows that most true believers with whom I've had direct contact are not willing to have their beliefs criticized in any fundamental way. Sure, I get that, for some, their belief is not one they want exposed to a crucible which, fair, it's not necessary to tell every grandma that her guardian angels are probably not physically possible. But when someone is explicitly clamoring for their claims vis-a-vis empirical reality to be taken seriously, they should not only expect some harsh critique, they should welcome it. After all, when I make such claims about, say, neutron stars, they are subjected to a similar scrutiny and I think I am better for it when making startling claims about neutron stars.
Like he claims is his practice, I welcome such things, and use it to improve my work.
All I saw from him, was the same childish shit that passes for debate on Wikipediocracy when you're challenging their fundamental beliefs.
Evidence and analysis that runs contrary to their dogma scares these pricks. They run screaming from it. Ban those who bring it.
These people are cowards. He is free to come here and challenge me. He will not.
They are truly the Guy Macon's of this world. Pople so clueless about science they don't even see the absurdity of a statement like "I am biased toward science".