Good morning, rwguinn.
Haig has, at times, been very helpful to me, a new ISF member trying to understand what the ech actually is, and I have thanked him for that. However, it seems to me that he has only the most superficial understanding of what he posts, and because of this, he has stopped even trying to reply to my questions on what he's posted (I'm primarily interested, in this thread, in the electric comet hypothesis/model/theory, and the parts of the electric Sun model/theory/whatever which are directly relevant to it; I could care less about petroglyphs and z-pinches, except where they are directly relevant to the ech).
What have you found to be effective methods of dealing with the linkspamming? The almost endless series of lengthy posts by Haig that are essentially devoid of meaningful content?
Sol88 seems to enjoy being sarcastic, and focused on posting what he seems to think are anomalies and inconsistencies with/in "the mainstream" (again, re comets). Despite the fact that he himself started this thread, and titled it "The Electric Comet theory", Sol88 also seems to have little understanding of the ech, and even less interest in discussing it. True, he does sometimes post a lot of links and selected quotes; however, he seems to do less of this than Haig, and his sources seem more diverse.
What have you found to be effective methods of dealing with the sarcasm, and the apparently endless attempts to avoid any discussion at all of the ech?
@Haig, @Sol88: accept, for now at least, that I am genuinely interested in the supposed topic of this thread. Accept, too, that what I have written in this post is an accurate summary of how I view your posts. Further, accept that you both seriously intend (or at least once intended), by your participation in this SMMT ISF thread, to increase ISF members' understanding of the ech and - ultimately - acceptance of it. To me, it's now obvious that you have both failed in your intent; you have failed to communicate your message to what is surely your intended audience. Do you agree? If so, why do you think you have failed so badly?
I think it's important to distinguish between Haig and Sol88, in terms of general patterns in their posts.
Haig has, at times, been very helpful to me, a new ISF member trying to understand what the ech actually is, and I have thanked him for that. However, it seems to me that he has only the most superficial understanding of what he posts, and because of this, he has stopped even trying to reply to my questions on what he's posted (I'm primarily interested, in this thread, in the electric comet hypothesis/model/theory, and the parts of the electric Sun model/theory/whatever which are directly relevant to it; I could care less about petroglyphs and z-pinches, except where they are directly relevant to the ech).
What have you found to be effective methods of dealing with the linkspamming? The almost endless series of lengthy posts by Haig that are essentially devoid of meaningful content?
Sol88 seems to enjoy being sarcastic, and focused on posting what he seems to think are anomalies and inconsistencies with/in "the mainstream" (again, re comets). Despite the fact that he himself started this thread, and titled it "The Electric Comet theory", Sol88 also seems to have little understanding of the ech, and even less interest in discussing it. True, he does sometimes post a lot of links and selected quotes; however, he seems to do less of this than Haig, and his sources seem more diverse.
What have you found to be effective methods of dealing with the sarcasm, and the apparently endless attempts to avoid any discussion at all of the ech?
@Haig, @Sol88: accept, for now at least, that I am genuinely interested in the supposed topic of this thread. Accept, too, that what I have written in this post is an accurate summary of how I view your posts. Further, accept that you both seriously intend (or at least once intended), by your participation in this SMMT ISF thread, to increase ISF members' understanding of the ech and - ultimately - acceptance of it. To me, it's now obvious that you have both failed in your intent; you have failed to communicate your message to what is surely your intended audience. Do you agree? If so, why do you think you have failed so badly?
.
!
.
