emotioncons
Ah interesting things happened while I was taking a nap. At last a testable claim from SY.
So presumably here you're interpreting 'lucrative' in a fairly narrow way as 'lucrative for SY personally' whereas jkeny's making the point that the business - after all he cites company names in his claim - is lucrative. Of course a business that's not lucrative will die. Looks like SY your claim does not stand up because you chose to interpret it in your own characteristic idiosyncratic fashion. jkeny's not in fact bound by your own narrow meanings for words when he posts.
As examples go of emotion triumphing over reason, this is most certainly one.
We use 'link budget' for satellite comms (and cable, terrestrial microwave) That's the combination of % availability, uplink power, antenna aperture, atmospheric attenuation, rain rate, free space attenuation, downlink power etc., etc. It's a perfectly respectable engineering/scientific expression.
w
w
Perhaps you'll give us the results of your examination of the company's balance sheet? And tell us how you managed to get access?
John (and you) are certainly free to lie, but I will call it that when you do.
I'm sure those watching the company will see just how lucrative!
Let's look at some points:
- The FUD in SY's paper has been seeded for baby bottles (37 mentions in the paper), sports bottles (11 mentions)
- Look up the class action Bisphenol-A (BPA) Polycarbonate Plastic Products Liability Litigation, MDL Case No. 1967
- Who are the main defendants - baby bottle manufacturers and distributors, sports bottle manufacturers, and formula manufacturers.
- Ohhh, what a coincidence! Congrats on your research there, SY
Let's look at some points:
- The FUD in SY's paper has been seeded for baby bottles (37 mentions in the paper), sports bottles (11 mentions)
- Look up the class action Bisphenol-A (BPA) Polycarbonate Plastic Products Liability Litigation, MDL Case No. 1967
- Who are the main defendants - baby bottle manufacturers and distributors, sports bottle manufacturers, and formula manufacturers.
- Ohhh, what a coincidence! Congrats on your research there, SY
Last edited:
Makes sense to me for that meaning. Does not for FrankWW's meaning. In any case I'm not commenting on whether its acceptable, just as to whether its appropriate. Certainly it appears not in regard to the phrase 'energy budget'.
No such examination necessary. Companies that are not lucrative die. Of course they do - are you taking issue with that basic tenet of business? Cool if you are, as I like to see original thinking. But let's be seeing reasons for believing its not the case?
False premise - see above.
So you're calling me a liar? In stating that 'companies that are not lucrative die' ? I'd like to see it in black and white if you are indeed doing that, rather than hinting at it.
Let's look at some specifics, seeing as SY is constantly barking about me not reading the paper:
One claim is
Now, first stress -what scientific proof have you got that this stress is a simulation of real world UV stress? Without proof, it's meaningless.
second stress which is meant to simulate consumer dishwashers - what temperature do consumer dishwashers reach - nothing like the above 134°C (274F) - more like 160°F - again if it's not proven to be a real world simulant, it's worthless!
One claim is
the paper goes on to outline the stresses used
Now, first stress -what scientific proof have you got that this stress is a simulation of real world UV stress? Without proof, it's meaningless.
second stress which is meant to simulate consumer dishwashers - what temperature do consumer dishwashers reach - nothing like the above 134°C (274F) - more like 160°F - again if it's not proven to be a real world simulant, it's worthless!
I'm not going to take issue (this time around) with the specious claims about word games, rather the issue in regards to research companies. You're saying that research companies don't need to be lucrative? If so I'm curious - they might then be a species of parasite, a means of transferring public money into private hands. That most certainly is an interesting branch of research I've been following of late. Care to spell out more?
Cool
I'm taking it that you adopt a rather broader definition of 'lie' than I do, but I'm getting the picture.
You mean SY is name calling! No attacks on anything, just simply statements! Your framing of what you are saying is what is giving you "emotional reaction" - calm down, read more carefully & you'll get over it.
Jkeny's already made the point that SY is over ready to bring money into the argument. I concur - its germane that he parades the fact that he took a salary cut to go work for his current company. Once a topic has been introduced, its impolite not to follow it up.
Its actually one of the more exciting exchanges I've been involved with of late - pure entertainment. Kind of like '24' on a small screen. Why should the destination concern you?
Gee! All I wanted to do was talk about reason and emotion. I gave examples of how different emotions drove me to certain reasoning activities.
One person wants to involve my posts in what is obviously a personal feud with another member.
And it seems another is attempting to derail me from the original topic of the thread by bringing what is the least important part of my posting to the forefront. It's easy to cavil at every inessential thing, but in this case, to what end, except to troll for general disorder and ill temper, I don't know.
What drives that sort of reasoning activity is, of course, private, but it's impossible not to speculate about it.
Edit:
After reading what was posted while I was writing this post, I'm willing to say the authors' motivations are nasty.
BTW the downside of lying, since somebody asked, is that folk won't trust you because they are driven by the emotions of suspicion and dislike about you and thus their reason and emotion will be in sync. And your life will become more difficult.
One person wants to involve my posts in what is obviously a personal feud with another member.
And it seems another is attempting to derail me from the original topic of the thread by bringing what is the least important part of my posting to the forefront. It's easy to cavil at every inessential thing, but in this case, to what end, except to troll for general disorder and ill temper, I don't know.
What drives that sort of reasoning activity is, of course, private, but it's impossible not to speculate about it.
Edit:
After reading what was posted while I was writing this post, I'm willing to say the authors' motivations are nasty.
BTW the downside of lying, since somebody asked, is that folk won't trust you because they are driven by the emotions of suspicion and dislike about you and thus their reason and emotion will be in sync. And your life will become more difficult.
Last edited:
Jkeny's already made the point that SY is over ready to bring money into the argument. I concur - its germane that he parades the fact that he took a salary cut to go work for his current company. Once a topic has been introduced, its impolite not to follow it up.
Its actually one of the more exciting exchanges I've been involved with of late - pure entertainment. Kind of like '24' on a small screen. Why should the destination concern you?
So, its exciting and entertaining, What about productive? The topic is "logic and emotion". For some time its been a demonstration of emotion, of hasty postings, and poorly sustained claims. Claims of personal bias ect. Im sure you can tell by my tone that I believe a level of civility is important for any effective discorse.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.