Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 64 of 64

Thread: Have we become more childish in our discussions?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,713
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    I found it interesting since it seemed to me to that it initially was about the comparison between a more engineering approach (gas efficacy) and the broader definition by physics. But it became more of one versus another, warranting a mod's intervention given the likely growing level of ad hominems.
    Even engineers have to deal with gas pressures that are not forces on walls. When basic general concepts are treated as application-dependent, we are headed to the tower of Babel that science is usually so good at avoiding.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Jan-03 at 09:03 PM.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,307
    Ken has unfortunately used this thread to continue to propagate his position on the content of the original 'Gas behavior' thread.
    I thus feel compelled to remind folk that my involvement in it, was made from a deliberately conscious decision to correct an evidently (demonstrated) wrong and false advocation made by him that gas pressure had absolutely nothing to do with collisions under any conditions, and that anyone who believed otherwise, lacked nothing more than his own personally arrived upon understanding.

    His ad hom responses were used as a substitute for his failure to address the various issues raised in the thread.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,713
    Actually, here I'm merely asserting that simple general definitions are always better than specific application-dependent ones. For understanding of what gas pressure does rely on, people can always read that other thread.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Jan-03 at 09:24 PM.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Even engineers have to deal with gas pressures that are not forces on walls. When basic general concepts are treated as application-dependent, we are headed to the tower of Babel that science is usually so good at avoiding.
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Ken has unfortunately used this thread to continue to propagate his position on the content of the original 'Gas behavior' thread.
    I thus feel compelled to remind folk that my involvement in it, was made from a deliberately conscious decision to correct an evidently (demonstrated) wrong and false advocation made by him that gas pressure had absolutely nothing to do with collisions under any conditions, and that anyone who believed otherwise, lacked nothing more than his own personally arrived upon understanding.

    His ad hom responses were used as a substitute for his failure to address the various issues raised in the thread.
    Both of you (and anyone else) knock it off; we are not rehashing the content of that thread here.

    Frankly, the science: good, bad, or indifferent, has nothing to do with the problems of the thread in question, nor generally the types of moderator actions being discussed here. The problem is polite behavior or the lack there of. As best as i can tell, such behavior is independent of the science involved, the correctness (or not) of the science, or what section of the forum the discuss is happening in.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •