| Username |
Post |
| Gaunle |
Posted
on 26-Jun-01 08:22 AM
No need to get defensive.If you cannot take a suggesstion in good stride,then it is your problem.
You did keep on writing in multiple articles about parental genetics and amygdala hijacking and genes.And I just wanted to point out that you could go on making your arguements as you have been doing without including those extra things which are merely your own making.You could do it but others including myself wouldn't take your arguments as seriously if you included those unimportant sentences.That all.
If you cannot take constructive criticism well that's your problem.
And another criticism: no need to create multiple threads on the same subjects.If everyone created a new thread to reply to previous postings then it would defeat the purpose of replying.So if you can you should avoid creating new threads for older topics.I am doing it in this one to show how annoying it can be if we see five replies to my old posting in all different threads.It would dilute out the other important threads by a lot of other people which is not good.
You are welcome to take this any way you please.Good or bad.
|
| Gokul |
Posted
on 26-Jun-01 09:40 AM
Hello friends,
The purpose of this discussion is to provide us the forum for communicating our ideas(creative or destructive), knowledge (ocean or iota), beliefs(rational or irrational) and emotions (hard and soft). If somebody (Let it be A) seems to be an expert in multiple things (without A claiming that he/she is an expert) in the eyes of another person (Let it be B), then there is a strong possibility that the person A might be the possessor of the knowledge he/she is radiating provided the person B is sane and making the rational assumptions. If B is insane, then his/her claim that A seems an expert can not be trusted and it is foolish for other persons to listen to B onwards.
The only way to test whether A is making a correct statement (which does not require A to be an expert on that matter), is to test the VERITY of that statement. Statements stand themselves.
If B refutes A's statements because that would make A expert on many subjects, which is intolerable ( to see a fellow Nepali knowing so many things thereby shattering the illusion that B himself was the grandest and most knowledgeable of all at least among Nepali intellectuals), impossible(how come a person knows the problems of amygdala and bardiya at the same time?) THEN it takes no brainer to understand that B is suffering from serious malady of self-aggrandizement, narcissism and self pity.
Final suggestion to B
If A is expert ( as you say and fear that it is true), then interact and learn from him. Oneday you can outsmart him.
If A is not expert, then you have the golden opportunity to demonstrate that and you will have already outsmarted him.
B You have nothing to lose but fear and jealousy.
|
| Gaunle |
Posted
on 26-Jun-01 09:54 AM
Ha-Ha.Very convoluted and funny!If B gives an advice to A to drop the expert-sounding bits from his/her otherwise good arguements to make A's arguements better and more serious then it only helps A to listen to those suggestions.A doesn't have to listen to them and shrug it off saying B is jealous.That's A's right.That's completely fine.C doesn't have to come in and say that there is a basis to A's logic and that A is really an expert and that there is this 'gyan'"radiating" out of A.But that's C's right too.
Life is too short to get into these petty jhagadas.I had a suggesstion to offer, Ashu did not like and thought I was motivated by things other than simple suggesstions to someone else here.That's his right too.
|
| Gaunle |
Posted
on 26-Jun-01 09:57 AM
Or maybe C is A.:-)
|
| Gandhi |
Posted
on 26-Jun-01 10:38 AM
I support Gokul's idea. I like those deductive logics of scientific methodology. B has shown some characteristics of pseudoscience in his writing. B has an easily falsifiable assumption that cannot withstand when testified against the facts.
A claims he is A
C claims he is C
Both claim they accept 'Gali' or 'Tali' in own's name.
Facts are revealed from a careful review of GBNC postings in the last four months. It testifies the hypothesis that C and A are not the same.
C's suggestion to B holds true again. B has a good rhetoric but needs to go through the scientific process to convince the community in order to establish his ideas and knowledge.
|
| Gaunle |
Posted
on 26-Jun-01 10:58 AM
There is no science in any of this and that's what I have been trying to say for so long now.Just like ashu doesn't have scientific basis for his "inherited traits from fathers" nor does Goleman have scientific basis for his "amygdala hijacking".People can keep on inserting these non-scientific unproven things to support their arguements but why put them in if you can already make your case without them.
Instead of stating your case for or against inserting these unnecessary things in your writing (which has been my case) everyone here is either for or against people (who cares!) making me think that this is a forum in which people are judged and not their arguements.
|
| namita |
Posted
on 26-Jun-01 11:40 AM
set theory?
A is a book worm
all book worms are not A
B has some truth
most of the truth does not belong to B
A knows something
and B seems to know A knows something
if you bring 'A' and 'B' together
the intersected area - a little shaded are which let's call it 'C'
therefore 'c' seems to be som part of and 'A' and 'B'. This entitity 'C' my friends, is some knowing, some boasting, some getting jealous and some plain appearing intelligent. Is there this 'C' in all of us?
please anybody outhere with a mathmatical genious to support/expand my so called theory? help me out here.
namita
|
| sally |
Posted
on 26-Jun-01 12:00 PM
If A says B
and C says D
and E says FU
and U say ZZZZ
Then
O G,
I will B cra-Z
If I don't X out of GBNC
|
| Gokul |
Posted
on 26-Jun-01 12:36 PM
Mathematical Properties of A, B, C
Let A = Asal (Truth, knowledge)
B = Badmaas (Ignorance, Falsity)
C = Chetansheel (not chaploos ;-) Cement, Catalyst, Caretaker, Causality
Law of Commutativity
(1) Additive
A + B NOT Equal B + A.
(Explanation: If A starts talking first and if B then starts to talk, then A gets quiet. This is not true in reverse.)
(2) Multiplicative
AB NOT EQUAL BA . (Explanation: The resultant tit-for-tat harangues depend upon the point of origin. Limit AB->0 whereas BA -> oscillates. Use Riemann Geometry here or remember ASCOL's daariwaal sir)
Law of Associativity
(1)A+(B+C) NOT EQUAL (A+ B) + C
Proof:
B+C = A (When B is given chetana, he becomes A)
Therefore, A+(B+C) = A + A = 2A
A + B = a (The prowess and enthusiasm of A gets diluted when confronted by B. Read Mitra's chemistry here)
Therefore, (A+B)+ C = a+ C = A (The enthusiam regained! Similar to Milton's Paradise regained)
Therefore, A+(B+C) NOT EQUAL (A+ B) + C
(2) (AB)C NOT EQUAL A(BC)
Proof: (AB) = 0 (When antiparticles meet, their total mass is zero and some energy is released. Refer to Einstein's famous equation E = m c squared, if you want to calculate E. Read Feynman's lectures in Physics for this)
Therefore, (AB) C = 0 ( A total disaster, similar to what happed in June 1)
ABC
Absolute Bullshit Chaliraheccha
Aru Bhannu Chhaina.
|
| N. |
Posted
on 28-Jun-01 11:25 AM
gokul, you are genius.
|
| sunsari ko kaila |
Posted
on 28-Jun-01 11:11 PM
Two ways to become famous (or infamous):
1. Have ideas and convince people that your ideas are infact valid.
2. Have ideas that create controversy. (Don't agree with others and find ways to oppose other's ideas).
|
| N |
Posted
on 29-Jun-01 10:54 AM
How do people come up with all these interesting/creative chaddma names?? I love it.
|
