X-Message-Number: 29797 Subject: RE: [CN] Do I respond to dss? Hmm...well, maybe a small Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:47:59 -0400 References: <> From: "Hare, Tim R" <> -----Original Message----- From: CryoNet F [mailto:] On Behalf Of David Stodolsky Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:20 AM To: CryoNet F Subject: Re: [CN] Do I respond to dss? Hmm...well, maybe a small On 27 Aug 2007, at 19:05, Hare, Tim R wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: CryoNet F [mailto:] On Behalf Of David > Stodolsky > Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 5:46 AM > To: CryoNet F > Subject: Re: [CN] Do I respond to dss? Hmm...well, maybe a small > posting. ... > > On 25 Aug 2007, at 18:15, wrote: > >> Thanks for sharing, David Stodolski. > > If you had the training of a research scientist, you would be less > likely to make mistakes like this. ;-) > (i =/= y) > > [TRH: Tolerate the exchange (I >> Y). With your training you must > have > *some* appreciation for the evolution of words/languages via this sort > of transcription error.] The evolution of languages has nothing to do with it. [TRH: This was humor, David, humor. Which is where we should start, here, since you attempt to hide behind it (see below) as you proceed through your unavailing and disingenuous rebuttal, with comments that are variously cast as humor, or assertion, to suit the needs of the moment...quantum tunneling their way hither and yon, like miniature Bohr's in 'Alice in Quantumland'.] The question is whether identity of an author is crucial. [TRH: Heavens! I was in danger of confusing D.Stolodsky with that other fellow who is such a supportive soul, seeking to bring out the best in the positions of all...seeking even the smallest merit in another's case, in order to get at the truth and, as a reckless thrill seeker (his one fault), attempting have a good time with others on the listsrv.] I don't know of a single journal that wouldn't return a paper for correction if it had an error like this. [TRH: Once again, your peer reviewed journal fetish is referenced to justify your attack on Rudi over the merest of typos: "If you had the training of a research scientist, you would be less likely to make mistakes like this." I think many are laughing at your flailing about for a point of intellectual purchase, in crediting scientific training with fewer typos as an outcome. Care to cite the study? No? Yet this is all an ineffectual dodge, of course. Like all of your comments, the position was artless, and did little to mask your real intent. The shear joy of belittling others on the listsrv, and the thrill of seeing your own condescension in print. I'm sure you were all aquiver. Let's move on...] > > As Niels Bohr commented: "Prediction is very difficult, especially > about the future" This is supposed to be taken as a humorous statement. [TRH: You're not being candid, as usual. It was condescension, in your case....it was humor, in Bohr's case. Regardless, after making the statement above, you go on to base your assertion on it, again. It fails you there, cast as humor, or not.] > > [TRH: Your paper tiger just turned on you: appeal to a better > authority, > as this in fact *supports* Rudi's case.] No. It shows you haven't taken the time to think about my argument. If one of the world's most famous scientists makes a statement like this, you begin to understand how any predictions are extremely hazardous. [TRH: Yes, Dave, it does support Rudi's case. Uh, have you taken the time to think?...you don't think?...you only emit visceral responses? No? Ah, you have a proprietary logic? We're all to play Alice to your Mad Hatter? Pass the tea....as we've gained a moment to sip by discarding any concern over whether the above is more humor, or assertion; it matters not. If the former, you have no case, if the latter, you're quoting of Bohr is "extremely hazardous" to you own argument, as you would have to agree since this is part of your assertion (should it turn out not to be humor). Some advice: when using a smoke screen, immediately turn a logical corner. If your tactic works, you don't want your opponent to flatten you as (s)he stays on logical course.] > > For anyone but a person doing research in cryobiology > > [TRH: Is your degree in cryobiology? No? Then for anyone not doing > research in this field, to defend *alternatives* to Rudi's assertion, > even vague skepticism, is "to be hoist by one's own petard". It > *is* in > cryobiology? Ah, well, then stop posting on such a wide range of > other > topics, as you're not an acknowledged expert in these areas.] The point is that if anyone would be able to make a credible prediction, it would have to be someone in the field. [TRH: This is much more moderate...and certainly more palatable, relative to "...arrogant disregard for the complexities of the science." I'm sure Rudi accepts this refinement. However, I don't....since you weren't trying to inform, only to inflame....so let's flame on.....let's move on down your rapidly cooling corpse of a rebuttal.] > > to make predictions about reversible suspended animation > > [TRH: "Reversible suspended animation"? Your position would be > stronger > if you didn't muddy the waters > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspended_animation] and referred to > it as > re-animation. Given the rigor you suggest we all adhere to, why the > lack > of precision? ] Rudi was discussing suspension reversible at will, not by waiting for an unknown period. [TRH: More obfuscation!.. Spin! Hand waving! etc. Yawn. This is not a discussion of suspended animation, but speculation about reviving a corpse -- something that has had it's animation terminated, not suspended. Your peers at the journal club won't forgive you if you keep mixing the two up. As to "not waiting for an unknown period", what in God's green earth does this have to do with an adequate rebuttal to the above? Nothing of course -- it's a straw man that is perilously close to being 'word salad'. Pass me more tea, Mr. Hatter.] > > merely shows an arrogant > > [TRH: Arrogant? You're projecting...(see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection] > > disregard for the complexities of the science. > > [TRH: You're undercutting your own argument again. It is, as you've > convinced us all, I'm sure, by quoting Bohr, an appreciation for the > complexities that affords the latitude for a wide range of estimates.] > Stop wasting our time and destroying your own credibility. [TRH: Ah, the predictable 'stern warning' you always toss out like some hex sign to ward off successful dismantling of your position...reflective of a level of frustration and suppressed violence....it gives me chills! Credibility? Is that what you're obsessed with? You can have what little I've got. Good lord, can you not grasp the obvious intent of our journey together? I want you to fully realize, at a deep emotional level, that you're a cut rate idea killer....an intellectual-bully-wanna-be. You're a petty, petulant brat who's running amuck. Rudi made a post. He simply made a post. A simple post asking people to have a sort of ethereal office pool, if you will, about the guesses they had...guesses. Speculation. For fun. No citations, no experts. Just for fun. What did you do? You, of course, saw it as an opportunity to spurn this good natured inclusive post, and instead, trot out your stale, ad hominems disguised as worthy critique: "While Rudi is by no means the worst offender, we do have people whom are so scientifically illiterate that they can't distinguish fact from fiction." What really makes me laugh is that the *apparent* dimension of your posts can be reduced until all that remains is a single myopic refrain: warmed over versions of exactly what you've written above. A little nodule of puss that needs to be lanced. In rounding out, and addressing the issue of time you bring up above, one wonders at the mass of dysfunction to be found by future generations on thawing out such CROOKS as yourself, who, in effect, STEAL so much from others on this listsrv as a consequence of degrading it, and contrary to your claim regarding "wasting our time and driving the people who have little time to waste and more to offer the discussion off the List.", don't offer anything comparable to what they've stolen from the listsrv.] ------------------ David Stodolsky Skype: davidstodolsky Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29792 ############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list <>. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <> Send administrative queries to <> Notice: This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains information of Merck & Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates (which may be known outside the United States as Merck Frosst, Merck Sharp & Dohme or MSD and in Japan, as Banyu - direct contact information for affiliates is available at http://www.merck.com/contact/contacts.html) that may be confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it from your system. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29797