On 03/31/2010 12:46 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 09:30 PM 3/30/2010, Harry Veeder wrote: >> I don't see anything wrong with the way Krivit presented the data in >> order to make his point. > > As I just mentioned in another post, I haven't studied "his point" in > this case. Perhaps you'd take a look and explain it. I'm tired of being > the only one who deconstructs his rants in detail.
What you've been doing has been extremely interesting but you're preaching to the choir when you post this stuff on Vortex. If you're not already posting "Krivit deconstructions" in other forums where they may have more visibility, you might consider doing so. Of course, *you* can't post on Krivit's blog, he'll never approve any of your posts -- or at any rate that's the impression I got from a brief email exchange with him. And I haven't got the patience to argue with him; he's turned himself into a disgusting patch of slime and the less time I spend reading his drivel the happier I am. Beware, all who would argue with him: He's obviously got an agenda, and he's no longer out to *learn*. He's subscribed, big-time, to a conspiracy theory, and is working to show that all "mainstream" CF researchers are liars. His current state appears to be very similar to that of many non-scientists who convince themselves that they know more than the scientists, and that furthermore the scientists are conspiring to suppress their personal insight. I have *never* seen anyone in a state such as that respond intelligently to logical arguments, nor recover from their delusions. You can explain to others how badly misguided Krivit is, and that may do some good. But arguing with Krivit himself would be a total waste of time. (So call me a pessimist.) > > Would you be willing to check it out, cite and look at the original > sources, etc.?
