In Reply to: Re: "we never get a worthy explanation" posted by Steve Eddy on May 7, 2005 at 14:48:26:
You misunderstand; I'm not saying every explanation should be accepted. I am saying, in this case, my statements have been rejected (by Klaus) because he has apparently made his mind up (on the subject of the Chip containing a quantum dot), so anything having to do with quantum dots or fluorescence or light-matter interaction is rejected."Legitimate disagreement" is the key phrase. There can be no legitimate discussion of quantum dots without at least some legitimate "homework," as I call it. Doesn't that seem fair? Continuing along the lines of "that cannot be" or "that is impossible" is not a legitimate form of disagreement in my book.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: legitimate disagreement - geoffkait 15:37:52 05/07/05 (7)
- Re: legitimate disagreement - Steve Eddy 17:30:20 05/07/05 (6)
- Re: legitimate disagreement - geoffkait 18:38:12 05/07/05 (5)
- "Why do your posts always sound so angry" - BS64 10:22:10 05/08/05 (2)
- Re: "Why do your posts always sound so angry" - Steve Eddy 10:33:45 05/08/05 (1)
- "Simple. Tactics." - BS64 10:40:24 05/08/05 (0)
- Re: legitimate disagreement - Steve Eddy 21:00:13 05/07/05 (1)
- Re: legitimate disagreement - geoffkait 02:02:53 05/08/05 (0)