3 ms·
>If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no? Yes, and they have. But you ignore them and slander them and then sa
by agsdfgsd 8y ago
>If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no?
Yes, and they have. But you ignore them and slander them and then say "see, nobody has found any holes!".
- dang 8y agoYou've been getting involved in a lot of flamewars on HN. That's not what this site is for. If you keep doing it, we're going to have to ban you again, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use the site as intended, we'd appreciate it. The intention is intellectual curiosity, not ideological battle.
- agsdfgsd 8y agoAgain, if you want to alter behavior you need to be clear about what the behavior you oppose is. This is my understanding of a flamewar: https://www.webopedia.com/TERM/F/flame_war.html https://www.webopedia.com/TERM/F/flame_war.html I have not engaged in anything like that, so I can not stop engaging in it. If what you mean is "don't post views that you think may not be in line with the majority of HN posters" then say so. If you want a far-left only site, then put that in the rules and save yourself the hassle of dealing with people who naively believe the site is what the guidelines say it is. If the intention is intellectual curiosity, then why is slandering people who present facts that some people don't want to hear acceptable? Who is learning from that? Yet pointing out that mathematicians have confirmed that the global warming models used to push the chicken little hysteria are based on incorrect math is not something that anyone could learn from? That is a "flamewar"?