Samudra wrote:

jambalaya wrote in message hlink.net...

Larry Forti wrote:

http://ecologos.org/fft.htm

Very nice, Larry. However, your approach to dismissing
the findings which you understandably don't like is
thoroughly unscientific. IN fact, it is ANTI-science,
par excellence.

A REAL scientist would have pointed out inconsistencies
in Leonard's account. A real scientist, Larry -
something you could never be - would keep his own
emotions out of it. You can't.


Even though some parts are indeed loaded with emotion aswell as gloss
(I've never seen Larry write differently) Larry does makes some points
and shows inconsistencies in the article.

Show ONE inconsistency Larry has pointed out.


A real scientist would keep emotions out of it, yet when do we see
this happen in real life? When the journal Nature called for the
burning of Sheldrake's book?

Because they considered it rubbish, not dangerous.
Sheldrake is a biologist, with no credentials to be
writing about physics. I suspect lots of legitimate,
dispassionate scientists also wanted to burn the racist
biological rantings of the physicist William Shockley,
too. I think it may be a poor choice of words for
scientists, but it's written or said in order to
express disgust, not fear of dangerous
paradigm-shifting ideas.

Larry's present style suits him and the spirit he writes in well. It
would of course never do in formal scientific discussion.

Larry Forti's "style", if you want to call it that, is
clear proof that he is a complete crank out on the
fringe. The fact remains that he DOES NOT UNDERSTAND
the science against which he rants and raves, and his
ravings have NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS in them at all.

Let me tell you a little story. When my goofy younger
brother (who barely finished high school and never
attended university, but who like Larry thinks he has
everything figured out) was about 10 years old, my mom
asked him some pretty mundane kind of typical mom's
question; you know, something like "Did you clean up
your room?" or "Have you finished your homework?" I
don't recall what the substantive part of my brother's
answer was, but I well recall that he prefaced it with
"On the theological survey, ..." That is, he had heard
some high-falutin' words, and he thought he sounded
impressive using them. That's Larry Forti. He has
picked up a smidgen of "science talk" - perhaps enough
to fool some fellow diet-extremist crackpots - but no
science.