47 minutes ago, swansont said:

Moderator Note

Posts should be about the topic, not personal attacks.

You’ve been warned about this before, so you obviously haven’t learned anything about that.

whatever someone says, you will eventually suppose that you were right in every case. May I suppose that this was the "approach/supposition of stupid English Society"?

anyway, what I said was exactly: that OP was wrong in his/her assertion. studiot is either.

but as said, whatever we say, I am sure that someone will suppose that they were always correct. So, what to discuss here?

nothing. And please accept that this is bigotry.

Edited 7 hours ago7 hr by ahmet

2 hours ago, ahmet said:

anyway, what I said was exactly: that OP was wrong in his/her assertion. studiot is either.

What you said, exactly, was “so, obviously you have not learnt anything!”

An answer that the claim was wrong would have been OK. Better still, an explanation of why it was wrong.

whatever someone says, you will eventually suppose that you were right in every case. May I suppose that this was the "approach/supposition of stupid English Society"?

…

but as said, whatever we say, I am sure that someone will suppose that they were always correct. So, what to discuss here?

People have been known to accept that they are wrong about factual matters when it’s demonstrated that they are. Discussion here is predicated on that.

I’m not sure what the connection is with “stupid English society”

nothing. And please accept that this is bigotry.

I do not; I have no idea how this is “bigotry”

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

I do not; I have no idea how this is “bigotry”

some bigotries which very common in this forum.

step 1: one demonstrates or proposes an opinion.

step 2: a well known member attempts to disagree to that opinion.

step3 : there is occuring of existence of many members downvoting that opinion (regardless the reality in that opinion, in fact this is a weakness of opinionating).

And this is bigotry, isn't it?

my opinion: there are many people who carry out just their job but surely not being busy with science (like in this forum).

so, is there no scientist all around the world: I think their numbers are very small.

eh, none has to agree to me :)

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by ahmet

Here is a good (polite) way to contradict someone.

Just now, studiot said:

Here is an excerpt from the Times of India that contradicts your statement.

The Times of India

6 animals that live without a heart and still survive in...

We usually think of the heart as something every animal needs– pumping blood, carrying oxygen, and keeping the body alive. It’s seen as one of the most essential organs. But nature often breaks the ru

1 hour ago, ahmet said:

  1 hour ago, swansont said:

I do not; I have no idea how this is “bigotry”

some bigotries which very common in this forum.

step 1: one demonstrates or proposes an opinion.

step 2: a well known member attempts to disagree to that opinion.

step3 : there is occuring of existence of many members downvoting that opinion (regardless the reality in that opinion, in fact this is a weakness of opinionating).

And this is bigotry, isn't it?

I don't understand who is who in the above. In the "Today I Learned in Mathematics" thread, only Genady and studiot were downvoted, and they were presumably by you (as the only person with the motive to downvote these two posters).

3 minutes ago, KJW said:

I don't understand who is who in the above. In the "Today I Learned in Mathematics" thread, only Genady and studiot were downvoted, and they were presumably by you (as the only person with the motive to downvote these two posters).

You don't actually have to post in a thread to 'vote', which is why I originally responded as I did for I did not then know who it was.

The mods can see who voted what, of course.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

You don't actually have to post in a thread to 'vote'

I assume that. However, it is reasonable to assume that a downvote came from the one antagonistic person who did post in the thread.

35 minutes ago, studiot said:

You don't actually have to post in a thread to 'vote', which is why I originally responded as I did for I did not then know who it was.

The mods can see who voted what, of course.

Whoever it was that downvoted you, I've balanced it by an upvote, just as you've done for me earlier.

2 hours ago, ahmet said:

some bigotries which very common in this forum.

step 1: one demonstrates or proposes an opinion.

step 2: a well known member attempts to disagree to that opinion.

This started out with a purported statement of fact; disagreement about its veracity is not mere opinion

Further, while the offending statement was opinion, the point is that it was inappropriate to share the opinion. Agreement or disagreement isn’t part of it.

2 hours ago, ahmet said:

step3 : there is occuring of existence of many members downvoting that opinion (regardless the reality in that opinion, in fact this is a weakness of opinionating).

Irrelevant

2 hours ago, ahmet said:

And this is bigotry, isn't it?

Bigotry has to do with motivation. I’m not sure what allegedly was based on e.g. race, religion or gender, which would make it bigotry, unless you are claiming that your own posts were motivated by this.