From: darkstar100@...
Message: 64210
Date: 2009-06-17
>I should warn everyone that indeed I may be arrogant, I don't take scientific authorities for granted, and I don't like moderated communities. For this reason, don't except me to stay here, I'm here only to make a few comments on the issues that concern me directly.
> On 2009-06-16 22:21, darkstar100@... wrote:
>
> > Too make things clear from the start, I will explain that I don't
> > care who anybody is, or how much money he earns, or who's his
> > brother, or even what he published offline in some journal that is
> > out of immediate reach online (it's the Internet Age, wake up! What's
> > not at your fingertips, no longer exists in nature!).
>
> You don't have to tell us it's the Internet Age. This forum has existed
> on the Internet for ten years. But science is not just an interactive
> game for Internet addicts. It is developed _primarily_ at universities,
> in seminar rooms, at conferences, in laboratories or out there in the
> field, in libraries, in paper journals, etc. Of course it also has its
> Internet extension, like everything else today, but wake up, Neo, we are
> real people studying the real world.
>
> > To me, you're are just letters on the screen,
>
> It's your problem. To me, the list members are human and I try to keep
> that in mind.
>
> > and I can only judge you by what you
> > write or have to say here and now or at least somewhere online.
>
> Plenty of linguistic books and journals can also be found online, and
> quite a few of our posters have published stuff that can be found there.
>
> > I will also test whether you understand basic logic and scientific
> > method (many people don't), and attempt to extract some psychology
> > info on you based on the way you write.
>
> I couldn't care less what we are to you. But if you are interested in
> "testing" your fellow members, choose some other list. This one has
> moderators who might not like your tests.
>
> > For instance, if you get much
> > too critical, and never say anything good, I may draw the conclusion
> > that you're not a creative or maybe not even a smart person and that
> > you're only able to criticize other people's work without doing
> > anything of your own, therefore good critciism is supposed to include
> > a consideration of both strong and weak points of a statement or text
> > in question. You're also supposed to back up your statements with
> > arguments; free-floating "opinions" are good for the kitchen talk,
> > not a scientifically-oriented forum...
> >
> > If you're not interested in trying to fit these criteria, there's
> > probably no point to start.
>
> Do present a thesis and we can discuss it. But a guest should not begin
> by telling his hosts what rules they are supposed to follow. It could be
> considered arrogance. _You_'d better read this first:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/l6n9a5
>
> Piotr
>