Originally posted by Christine Tham No offense taken, and I don't claim to know more than Falk.
However, he made a statement. I expressed skepticism. The onus is on him to substantiate the statement.
I don't appreciate his comments about my level of knowledge, because frankly it's irrelevant whether I know more or less than him. Surely it is possible for him to justify a claim that he made without resorting to that?
falk is (probably) human and thus can be wrong. in theory.
he cannot be wrong in this case, because he is right
. with all due respect, read his posts carefully before saying he's wrong/right (as you should anybody' posts in such situation). i know flak can be difficult to follow, as he has a tendency to get to the point quickly and without much .. consideration for us mere humans
. i can usually follow him if i take the effort to read his posts entirely. when i can't be bothered, i don't read them at all, and certainly don't reply to them. it is a matter of respect i think is due to everybody i communicate with, and i expect the same level coming my way.
to simplify, you are basically saying "i can't be bothered to follow your reasoning, you have to prove it to me the way i want, otherwise your statements are worthless".
falk is most gracious, in his place i would be pissed (but i think he's merely amused)