Het is niet direkt gerelateerd aan het onderwerp van dit topic, maar ik zou het willen plaatsen omdat de interactie welke je er kan in vinden mij heel sterk doet denken aan wat op veel fora gebeurt, spijtig genoeg op dit forum ook: niet reageren op argumenten welke worden aangedragen, verwijzen naar de "onkunde" van diegene die de argumenten naar voor brengt, wijzen op het feit dat diegene die de argumenten aanbrengt schade berokkent of mensen kwetst.
Wanneer we belanden in een maatschappij waar het alleen maar uiten van kritiek al wordt beschouwd als verwerpelijk hebben we vaarwel gezegd aan één van de democratische beginselen: de vrijheid om je mening te uiten.
Je kan het oneens zijn met iemand, maar dit mag nooit een reden zijn om aangehaalde argumenten af te doen als niet bestaande of onzin.
Dat zet een rem op iedere vorm van evolutie, vooruitgang, vergaren van kennis.
Voetnoot:
Example Message and Response
Here is an example message I received, and my responses to it.
Dear Andrew,
I am surprised you haven't used your scientific training in a proper manner.
If you had, you would have discovered that properly-trained scientists have researched the properties of contrails and the effect on the atmosphere for 56 years.
Their evidence clearly shows that in certain conditions of humidity and temperature contrails may not only persist but grow, and that they they may also create a complete overcast.
You are harming our society.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:ad.johnson@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 20 February 2009 00:04
To:
Subject: RE: Contact from CheckEv
Hello,
Please can you be specific in your criticism of where you think I have
"not used my scientific training in a proper manner."
Please remember, I am perfectly well aware of what causes contrails and that contrails exist and are seen daily. What the data I (and many others have) gathered proves is that "something other than contrails" is also seen (not necessarily daily) in our skies. This video proves this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXhbsBCIG90
At 0:44 in the above we see (1) a normal contrail, disappearing in the time lapse and (2) a chemtrail x persisting for much longer. Same sky. Same day. Same temperature.
Please can you provide some evidence, directly linked to me or my website which substantiates this serious claim:
> You are harming our society.
Please can you provide the flight numbers for the flights which made this grid over my house on 10th June 2005 at 9:45pm:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/Chemtra ... %20(1).JPG
Thanks very much.
Andrew Johnson
UK
PS. It's POSSIBLE you *could* be harming society by making statements not substantiated with evidence about researchers who are simply expressing their conclusions based on data they and others have collected.
The person then responds - DOES NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC DATA POINTS - and then basically says I have little or no education or understanding.
From:
Sent: 21 February 2009 21:12
To:
Subject: Contact from CheckEv
Dear Andrew, your post was correct up to the point where you wrote “I am perfectly well aware of”.
Then it turns out you aren’t “perfectly aware” of anything. A cursory search of the standard scientific literature on the atmosphere would prove this to you, but somehow you have never gotten round to it, have you?
You may have DATA, but lacking scientific understanding, you have as yet been unable to interpret it. Good luck with that.
JazzRoc
From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:ad.johnson@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 21 February 2009 21:23
To:
Subject: RE: Contact from CheckEv
Thanks for saying I have no understanding. This is opinion. You have no evidence.
You have addressed NONE of the points I raised. Wilful ignorance of data and evidence proves nothing - it is unscientific. Data comes BEFORE understanding.
I have pointed to data to be explained and you have passed on the opportunity to explain it.
I suspect, by your logic, you cannot exist:
"I do not know what human beings are for, therefore - they can't be real. Humans cannot exist, because we cannot establish their purpose."
Oh and while your in denial, explain this for me please:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/
I hope you're happy with the way the future's looking.
Good luck.
Andrew
Person then says he "doesn't want to waste his time" - having not answered either of the data points I raised and having said I am "harming society", but providing no evidence to back up this opinion. Here's his blog - it's quite interesting what's there - http://jazzroc.wordpress.com/. He also suggests that any posts by me on his blog will be flagged as Spam if I don't get "an education" (is that a euphemism for saying posts must agree with his opinion?)
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: 21 February 2009 21:13
To:
Subject: Contact from CheckEv
Dear Andrew,
Also, you address me as if I were some automated flight computer. I am not. I’m a retired scientist enjoying the sunshine on a volcanic island in the sub-tropical Atlantic ocean, and I have no intention of wasting my time as you waste yours.
Further posts from you will be flagged as “spam” unless they show some signs that you have committed yourself to a further education. For a start you could read my blog.
JazzRoc
op zeker ogenblik stelt "JazzRoc" dat hij niet van plan is om tijd te verspillen aan de argumenten van Andrew Johnson.
Klinkt mij bekend in de oren.
Aan Paulus:
indien jij van mening bent dat deze reply niet hoort onder dit topic mag je die gerust verwijderen/verplaatsen.