It is impossible for you to have been doing the second since we had no past history. You were doing the first unless you are going to claim that your perspective is the only one that matters. But that is what you have been doing all along.
"I wanted you to look, but NOT for the reasons you attributed to me."
What you said was, "If you had done as I suggested, and searched some of his posts, you'd have seen what I meant."
Followed by, "It was not a posting of "what I consider graphic", still less did I post it in the hopes that you would go running off to see it."
So again we see that you are completely focused on yourself to the exclusion of all others. I'm beginning to detect a common theme for your posts.
" In order for projection to occur, two conditions must apply. First, the accuser must harbor the emotions; second, (probably) the accused must be free from the emotions. I am not cantankerous, irascible, taking issue, etc."
Well of course you would make that claim, but the evidence suggests otherwise. You are the one who constantly brings up these attributes and projects them onto me, after all.
"If I were, I would not have been asking you for more details about your quotes, I would have dismissed the quotes out of hand."
And again we see this focus on yourself and what you would do such that the definition only fits you if you decide it does. Again with the extreme focus on yourself.
"Well, yes, I had asked for that. Such a request is not inherently unreasonable. But, since you did bring it up, what do you mean "found them on google books" and then a sentence or two later say "you just want me to find *online* references for you"?? I thought google was online; could you explain a bit more clearly -- that way I'd be able to find the quotes in context, which remains my intent."
Sorry, I'm not going to do your research for you. If you can't find them online, that's your problem, not mine.
"No, no projection, nor yet dishonesty."
Yes, yes projection and the point was more intellectual honesty is needed from you. The very thing you tried to project onto me. It also appears that 'dishonesty' from you is just not *yet* (as defined in your own mind, of course) but is coming.
"Thats just my point, Dan. I'd love to see the original quote, and with it the original article in context. Because when I first tried to find the quote and article, all I found were duplications of the same few sentences you posted; but the discussion around those sentences made it sound like that Ellis was talking about Earth as the center of an expanding Universe, and not just the center of a solar system. Since those two topics ARE very different, I wanted to see the original article to see if the other people were taking his remarks out of context or not."
Here again, a little more intellectual honesty from you would be nice. Geocentrism is not that the earth is the center of the solar system and you are either ignorant or disingenuous to imply it. It is that the earth is the center of the universe. This is the point of Ellis' quote and why Ellis' quote is appropriate. Whether it is 'expanding' or not is based on a whole set of assumptions around the interpretation of redshift. Is this the beginning of the 'dishonesty' you spoke of just above?
"Difficulty over words here -- yes it is clear in the sense that I can form the mental construct alleged in your last paragraph. Unclear, because of my prior paragraph, I wanted to make sure the the quotes you gave really were in context and not "cherry picked" or misunderstood: not necessarily by you, or out of bad faith."
The only bad faith I have seen is coming from you. But then we understand how you project onto others that which you first assume yourself.
"The Ellis quote above, out of its context, does not tell me *which* observations he is talking about."
I suppose you would first have to assume that Ellis is talking about a subset of observations rather than the entire set. But that would make his point meaningless as anyone can construct a model to fit some limited set of observations that only they select. I think you are projecting again.
" And the websites I found which *did* have this quote were not talking exclusively about the Solar System, which is how this back-and-forth between us got started. So it is not in fact a matter of my beliefs either way -- it is a matter that the quote from Ellis looked a bit off-topic."
No, it's a matter of you assuming that Ellis is selecting a limited set of observations to make a meaningless statement and that someone is disingenuously making that statement appear technically true while being practically false. I sense more projection on your part.
" I did and was not able to find his original article. I did find a few flamewars reminiscent of this thread, however :-)"
That is impressive.
"Cheers!"
Cheers!
It is impossible for you to have been doing the second since we had no past history. You were doing the first unless you are going to claim that your perspective is the only one that matters. But that is what you have been doing all along.
Miscommunication there...when I spoke of past experience, I meant "experience *in general* on FR", not "my past experience with you" as I do not specifically recall having corresponded with you before.
"I wanted you to look, but NOT for the reasons you attributed to me."
What you said was, "If you had done as I suggested, and searched some of his posts, you'd have seen what I meant."
Followed by, "It was not a posting of "what I consider graphic", still less did I post it in the hopes that you would go running off to see it."
So again we see that you are completely focused on yourself to the exclusion of all others. I'm beginning to detect a common theme for your posts.
That's because those lines were in response to a response you posted *about* me, and an inaccurate impugning of my motives. Of course my responses in such a situation are going to involve myself.
" In order for projection to occur, two conditions must apply. First, the accuser must harbor the emotions; second, (probably) the accused must be free from the emotions. I am not cantankerous, irascible, taking issue, etc."
Well of course you would make that claim, but the evidence suggests otherwise. You are the one who constantly brings up these attributes and projects them onto me, after all.
Repeating this charge does not substantiate it.
If you hadn't been rude about my wife's birthday, the subject of cantankerousness would not have *been* broached. Unless you think mentioning a wife's birthday makes someone irascible etc...?
"If I were, I would not have been asking you for more details about your quotes, I would have dismissed the quotes out of hand." And again we see this focus on yourself and what you would do such that the definition only fits you if you decide it does. Again with the extreme focus on yourself.
That quote was again, a response to an accusation from you -- and mentioning your quotes in the first place, and then asking for more details on them, again, is not a focus on my self.
Here again, a little more intellectual honesty from you would be nice. Geocentrism is not that the earth is the center of the solar system and you are either ignorant or disingenuous to imply it. It is that the earth is the center of the universe. This is the point of Ellis' quote and why Ellis' quote is appropriate. Whether it is 'expanding' or not is based on a whole set of assumptions around the interpretation of redshift. Is this the beginning of the 'dishonesty' you spoke of just above?
Not in the slightest, except on your part. The original food fight on this thread dealt with whether the Sun or the Earth was at the center of the Solar System...which is related to, but not identical, to the geocentrism of which you speak. And if you are considering whether the Earth is the center of the Universe then redshift does matter, which it does not for the original food fight.
The only bad faith I have seen is coming from you. But then we understand how you project onto others that which you first assume yourself.
I have engaged in no bad faith -- unless of course, you consider asking YOU for more details, when I could not verify your quotes, and expressly allowing for the possibility that the sources *I* found might have been wrong, while continuing to ask you, is bad faith.
And what's up with "we"? Nobody else on this thread has ever accused me of bad faith.
I suppose you would first have to assume that Ellis is talking about a subset of observations rather than the entire set. But that would make his point meaningless as anyone can construct a model to fit some limited set of observations that only they select. I think you are projecting again.
No projection here. The question is not (as you impute to me incorrectly) whether Ellis constructed a model to fit a limited set of observations that only he selected. The question is whether he was talking about the same topic ass the earlier posters on this thread. You quoted Ellis, and I couldn't find the original quote in context. All the sources I found seemed to relate Ellis's quote to "Earth as the center of the Universe" and I attempted to clarify the difference or get access to Ellis's quote from you.
For some reason this seems to strike you as bad faith.
No, it's a matter of you assuming that Ellis is selecting a limited set of observations to make a meaningless statement and that someone is disingenuously making that statement appear technically true while being practically false. I sense more projection on your part.
I said nothing of the sort. I wondered whether the Ellis quote was relevant to the dispute earlier in this thread -- which is a far cry from being over a limited set of observations, or meaningless, or practically false.
I realize now that you are a troll.
Plonk.