User talk:Tinsue

Your edits
Thank you for providing an accont. Now, concerning your edits: I have backed up what I have said in response to your statements, until ~23:00 Pacific standard time yesterday, with the full material of science and the volunteered support of at last count 7 other editors. At that point, the sitation was that we had three times demonstrated that your arguments are tenuous at best and complete nonsense at worst.

Your response to our criticisms was to add a very large amount of material to the talk page, in which you seem to set yourself against the entire scientific establishment, however that is best defined, and claim that you've answered all of our objections by merely repeating what you have said before and adding irrelevant claims about cosmology and other things (see ad hominem argument for the logical fallacy here). You also verge into personal attacks. This is the definition of flaming: posting deliberately inflammatory posts.

I have not flamed. I realize that you in particular are likely to be annoyed by my stating that the discussion is over, but based on your actions, you'd be annoyed by any response I would have posted and a similar response was expected. Consequently, at ~23:00 PST yesterday, I posted to Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know and stated that further iterations of you making long inflammatory posts and ignoring criticism would be treated as vandalism and reverted, because I and other editors should not have to explain the same thing four times over.

These statements still stand. You may do as you wish, but flaming or vandalism will be treated as such. Michaelbusch 16:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This not refusing to address criticism. It is merely the statement that we have said enough to convince the hypothetical reasonable person and will say no more. Michaelbusch 00:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I've said before, I don't mind if Emoto is proved a hoax, however if such a claim is made I wanted to see some evidence. You keep saying that you have provided abundant references that would convince any reasonable person that Emoto's claims are false. All I have said is please provide these references to me so that I can have a look at them as well. I'd love to believe you, however this is an encyclopaedia and I want to see some basis to claims. I don't think that I am being unreasonable in asking you to prove what you are saying - after all you are asking the same of me.


 * I have responded to your criticism of the method because I believed that you had reached incorrect conclusions based on incomplete knowledge of the case. I wasn't trying to be insulting, and merely responded to your accusations of poor experimental design and execution. In regards to author and journal discreditation (which are ad hominem arguments in themselves now that you mention it), again I am happy to believe you if you direct me to respected references that would state that it is in fact the case. All I want to do is examine the full body of evidence. Too my current knowledge and research there is something weird going on, and I provided the information in good faith because I genuinely believe that what I am saying is accurate. If you definitively believe otherwise I am more than happy to agree with you once I see that your position is based on solid evidence and research.


 * Please give me references to your claims of Dean being an incompetent scientist or Elviser Press being a poor scholarly journal (or both).
 * PS I'm in and out at the moment so my responses will not be rapid as you have observed lately.

Tinsue 13:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Emoto's papers and the critiques of them by Randi, the CSICOP, and others, are the evidence against him. The easiest places to find this information is on his Wikipedia article. Michaelbusch 17:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)