New request that new knowledge

General scientific debates. Presentations of new technologies (not directly related to renewable energies or biofuels or other themes developed in other sub-sectors) forums).
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79125
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974

Re: New that requires new knowledge




by Christophe » 06/04/17, 15:12

Good riddance :)
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15995
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189

Re: New that requires new knowledge




by Remundo » 06/04/17, 20:46

Mr. Timesheet,

Thank you for remaining respectful and not too discourteous compared to others forumers.

Did67 in particular made (and continues) a very big contribution with the "Potager du Laesseux", which is one of the most active subjects of the forum.

Remundo for moderation.
0 x
Image
Timesheet
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 20
Registration: 31/03/17, 16:58

Re: New that requires new knowledge




by Timesheet » 08/04/17, 00:32

izentrop wrote:This rough and aggressive way of expressing myself and all the space left between each line reminds me of someone already designated here.

Now that you've distilled your Mr Timesheet venom and you have nothing else constructive to offer, good luck. : Mrgreen:



Put me in touch with "someone already designated here"? Ah surely still a classic humor on forums and chats.


What are unverifiable hypotheses used for?

I am a human being and not a viper. I have no venom. I come for new acquaintances motivated to exchange Gmail, it does not correspond to this clichés

Arrogance comes mainly from people who have certainties and who never doubt them. (testable hypothesis because based on logic and not bad faith)

The worst can not be me ..... the worst is that out of the 5 people a little ready, not one to catch up with the other.

Logic would like that on a group of people there is at least 1 who understands and explains to others who have not understood.

Why it doesn't work on a forum, probably because forumThey are not people with natural reactions, voluntarily but above all a second nature to despise others.

At least my hypothesis is verified .... even on forums like philosophy or ecology or robotics, it's always the same: people who do not know how to make debates without going into the personal attack of the new forumEur.

Surely the sects based on this human error. (hypothesis difficult to verify but also impossible to refute)
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15995
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189

Re: New that requires new knowledge




by Remundo » 08/04/17, 12:06

you know, Timesheet, if you feel bad about Econologie, the internet is vast, and teeming with social networks and others forums some of which will be more sensitive to your various developments.

The fact that 5 or 6 interlocutors, including several historical moderators, alert you to your condescension is a sign that you have to question yourself about your way of communicating.

After what you say is not always uninteresting, and would be read a lot more if you stopped playing the "higher philosopher" that comes on this forum like a dog in a bowling alley.

Sincerely,
0 x
Image
Timesheet
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 20
Registration: 31/03/17, 16:58

Re: New that requires new knowledge




by Timesheet » 09/04/17, 01:33

Remundo wrote:you know, Timesheet, if you feel bad about Econologie, the internet is vast, and teeming with social networks and others forums some of which will be more sensitive to your various developments.


I know the internet is vast, I just mentioned 3 forums different themes .... except, I also just wrote that the French mentality (which has a bad reputation) is identical everywhere on the internet. So why say the opposite when answering me? .... ah! because you react to the very existence of the message but not to what is written in it!

Remundo wrote: The fact that 5 or 6 interlocutors, including several historical moderators, alert you to your condescension is a sign that you have to question yourself about your way of communicating.


It is 5 or 6 but a follower of the "single thought" so it is not a guarantee of quality. ... especially since they have chosen to be moderators and it is therefore their passions / work to come on all subjects and criticize (and test the personality of the person by pushing him around a bit and waiting for his answers). And to be moderators it is not universal suffrage but rather at the head of the client (internal decision). Then a first says "Troll" and for 2 days everyone repeats "troll". It's dark, mean, and essentially unwarranted humor that I only notice on the internet. (The regulars precisely, the "historical" moderators also)

This kind of contemptuous humor is useless. ..I don't have to question myself because I don't have contemptuous humor.

I even write for nothing because I don't have to justify myself at the base. But I prefer to justify myself because real technical debates are useless in this playground filled with historic teachers. I would scramble to do my research alone.

Remundo wrote: After what you say is not always uninteresting, and would be read a lot more if you stopped playing the "higher philosopher" that comes on this forum like a dog in a bowling alley.


"superior philosopher"? I just do like everyone else who answered me: absolutely no compromise. Be all or nothing.

But your posts are crammed with cookie-cutter judgments, like all the posts I have read. ... you should know that an arbitrator must be neutral? And that it is not the case.

"Dog in a bowling game"? ... contemptuous humor. ... what I say confirms. ..simply read the judgments and implied. .... Me at least I am frank and direct. ... I don't beat around the bush with recitations of proverbs and ready-made logic. Who this place in any discussion arbitrarily (when it suits) because the "generalists" It is boilerplate.
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: New that requires new knowledge




by Did67 » 09/04/17, 10:35

Timesheet wrote:
I leave you with your badly framed and childish humor.



I thought you left us (alone) ????

What is going on ?? Another strike of the air traffic controllers that prevents you from reaching the island where you can host your site without risk of being censored ??? It gets really boring, these repeated strikes that disrupt our activities!
1 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15995
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189

Re: New that requires new knowledge




by Remundo » 09/04/17, 14:31

moinsdewatt wrote:Ah, and what do you want to know?

he tries to make us speak to take us back with the help of his superb dialectric. : Mrgreen:
0 x
Image
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554

Re: New that requires new knowledge




by moinsdewatt » 09/04/17, 14:50

Remundo wrote:
moinsdewatt wrote:Ah, and what do you want to know?

he tries to make us speak to take us back with the help of his superb dialectric. : Mrgreen:


I will be concise now with him:

Image
1 x
Timesheet
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 20
Registration: 31/03/17, 16:58

Re: New that requires new knowledge




by Timesheet » 09/04/17, 16:32

Did67 wrote:
Timesheet wrote:

I do not have the luxury of having been a happy polluter all my life and then of gardening in retirement to make myself "forgive" ...


And you never seem to judge without knowing ???

"happy polluter all my life" ... my faith, if you say so! Expression is free, especially on forums, where everyone can hide behind a nickname.

You pretend to want to discuss but you are only screwing up people you don't know anything about, even before you have taken the time to know a little more!

Good luck. But without me.



And you felt like you were no longer there. Finally .... this is an argument that remains a play on words.

I'm still there but passing randomly once a day. ... it's quick ... then we are not in a real debate there. ... it's just crappy exchanges that will lead to nothing .... so my original subject is obsolete .... but I suspected that we have a better chance of winning LOTO than of finding nicknames " environmentalists "with a humble and open-minded mentality (it was roughly my idea of ​​the mentality of an ecologist)


Well, it's like a forum classic what. Like everywhere else.


It’s amazing for people of forum techniques, but this is the 3 rd forums technique like that. The forum philosophy is quite strict and seen what they consider useful debates and quotes. ..I think that in 10 years they will still not have finished their debates.




But you will be one of the first to applaud when I am banned.
Last edited by Timesheet the 09 / 04 / 17, 16: 52, 1 edited once.
0 x
Timesheet
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 20
Registration: 31/03/17, 16:58

Re: New that requires new knowledge




by Timesheet » 09/04/17, 16:39

moinsdewatt wrote:
Remundo wrote:
moinsdewatt wrote:Ah, and what do you want to know?

he tries to make us speak to take us back with the help of his superb dialectric. : Mrgreen:

I will be concise now with him:
Image
Attachments
a.coco.fr-4511.jpg
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Science and Technology"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : A.D. 44 and 127 guests