New Rule: Posting Private Correspondence

[Huggy Bear]

I'm not going through it all again. It was all explained in detail at the time. People can view what happened and come to their own conclusions about how honest your quote was, if that's what you really want. He later corrected what he had said for accuracy, but you clung onto it regardless, failing to show this context. Hence quote mining. You picked out a single part to try and make a point that reading the whole would not support.

FaF didn't correct himself he was corrected, and after said correction he made up an excuse for why he was wrong, and guess what? He was still wrong.

---

What a strange question..  I would say the first step would be to verify the result.

The first step is observation.

I kinda assumed he meant after that, since apparently a scientific discovery had been made.

*emphasis mine*

What a strange question..  I would say the first step would be to verify the result.

No, you must first make an observation (eye witness), and from there you form your hypothesis and test it, and eventually come to your conclusion. that's how the scientific method works.

The initial observation is the evidence needed to form a question.

get it?

Alright, I thought you meant immediately post-observation, but that's fine.  Yes, observation is the first step.

No, you can't have evidence to form a question, that's nonsensical.  YOu record observations, and form a question that requires evidence to conclude.  That's how hypotheses are proven wrong, because they aren't supported by evidence.

Additionally, you're conflating observations and claims.  Scientific observations are recordings of events or data points, which are then investigated to find the cause of the observation.  Your faith healing/God-creator/etc claims are claiming an explanation right off the bat.

*emphasis mine*

---

As you can see, "to verify the result" is not the second step either, so how would including that make him look any better?

I asked a question, and he gave an answer, that is the FULL context, accepting correction after the fact is irrelevant, the point was that his original answer was wrong.

Clearly the staff agreed with my assessment.

That's called bias, I originally had one of the mods quoted in my sig, I don't think that sat too well with the other mods, so it seems that they would have a vested interest to disable my sig.

You clearly seen the post where Esquilax was already complaining about my signature, so you can't really expect him to be impartial now can you?

Let it go man and join us in the present. I'm not going to entertain these fantasies anymore.

Don't bring up false allegations and expect me not to refute them.