... Pathetic. You've tried to argue with people who really matter (I don't claim to be one of them, but I've seen it a number of times) and you've come out the loser in every case. Even if you had the courage (haha... that's a laugh) of your convictions, you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-27]
... since you mention power... are you sure you don't have your units confused somewhere? But oops... I told you I wouldn't give you any more hints. It is now triply hilarious to me that now I have stopped guiding you by the nose through this problem, you have turned hostile and ad-hominem again. Why do you need my guidance?
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]
You either need guidance, or you've betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
... Regarding your calculations: you're making mistakes that others have already made -- and which have subsequently been shot down -- when trying to refute Latour. I could point a couple of them out now, but I'm not going to. This was amusing at first but I'm done babysitting you. You really need to do your homework. I know you think you're right. But among other things, you're conflating... oops but I said I wouldn't do that. So good bye. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]
You won't point out mistakes because you can't.
Jesus, you're a dumbshit. (That's just a statement of opinion. But an honest one.) I told you before I'm not going to tell you why you're wrong. But here's another hint you don't deserve: I don't dispute your Equation 1, and never have (in a hypothetical ideal context, that is). You're just applying it in a way that doesn't actually apply.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-20]
You won't point out how this simple equation 1 doesn't apply because you can't.
Oh, hell. I'll just give it away, since you're being such a dumbass (my opinion). Among other mistakes, you're making the same one that Watts did when he tried to refute Latour. I have noticed a couple of other mistakes, but that by itself shows you are wrong. [Jane Q. Public]
You won't point out other mistakes because you can't.
... your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck. Here's another hint: I have told you several times where you're wrong, but you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid. Go where this has been debated before if you want your answers. Because you keep demanding them from me even though you were too goddamned stupid to realize that I gave you the clue a long time ago. No more replies. I am through. Again. [Jane Q. Public]
Again, I'd rather not go to that pedophile's website and debate with a child rapist. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.
Why did you wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? If you actually understand how conservation of energy at equilibrium works, then you must be able to recognize that enclosing a heated plate warms it. So why do you keep insisting otherwise? Do you need physics lessons, or have you betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation?
I have done nothing of the sort. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-20]
This is one reason why "conversations" with you are so stressful and unproductive. As usual, you're either lying or suffering from premature dementia. Of course you claimed the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures (power in = power out) is irrelevant. Of course you've wrongly insisted that enclosing a heated plate doesn't warm it.
Which is it? Have you betrayed humanity by lying and deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation, or are you suffering from premature dementia? Sadly, the result isn't too different either way.
"... non-person... disingenuous and intended to mislead
"Jesus, you're a dumbshit.