A scientist speaks

Lucys Mom wrote in
:

CatEyes wrote:
"outsider" wrote in message
...
First of all I really wish some of the people who post here would
calm the hell down. I know we are in stressful times but a number
of you, honestly, seem like your near the deep end of the pool
(without flippers).


Now as for that really odd assertion that a scientist being more
logical would therefore be less emotional let me say I have heard
some pretty nutty things and this is up there.


The ability to reason while under strong emotion is not the same as
no emotion. I am a scientist and am one of the most emotional
people I know but reason and experience has taught me over decades
that acting precipitously does not gain good results no matter how
strongly I feel about something. In fact the stronger I feel the
more I want good results so I channel my emotion into logic and
reason. I can't imagine anyone who posts to this group being
non-emotional. I find someone grading ones level of caring as an
inverse to how well one can think pretty pathetic and maybe a bit
transparent.


I honestly do not want to hear: that is not what I said/meant and I
sure don't want to read that is not what the op said/meant. The
rancor is getting tiresome. I know I am not the only one thinking
this put I am probably the least "popular" one thinking it and that
means I have the least to lose by offending and so I speak.

Think before you act/speak. It is a lot easier than taking it back
later.

sheesh!

And what a fine example of that you've given us here! ;

Hugs,

CatNipped


Kind of proves the point, doesn't it Andy?



kinda does

On Apr 30, 4:29*pm, outsider wrote:
First of all I really wish some of the people who post here would calm
the hell down. *I know we are in stressful times but a number of you,
honestly, seem like your near the deep end of the pool (without
flippers).

This newsgroup is far from the only group of people for whom this
woudl be good advice. But it is true that people are often too
emotional.


Now as for that really odd assertion that a scientist being more logical
would therefore be less emotional let me say I have heard some pretty
nutty things and this is up there.

I didn't hear anyone say that but I have not read every post in every
thread.


The ability to reason while under strong emotion is not the same as no
emotion. *I am a scientist and am one of the most emotional people I know
but reason and experience has taught me over decades that acting
precipitously does not gain good results no matter how strongly I feel
about something. *In fact the stronger I feel the more I want good
results so I channel my emotion into logic and reason. *I can't imagine
anyone who posts to this group being non-emotional. *I find someone
grading ones level of caring as an inverse to how well one can think
pretty pathetic and maybe a bit transparent.

Another straw man. If you can't come up with a concrete example I
don't think I am going to get worked up about it.


I honestly do not want to hear: *that is not what I said/meant and I sure
don't want to read that is not what the op said/meant. *The rancor is
getting tiresome. *I know I am not the only one thinking this put I am
probably the least "popular" one thinking it and that means I have the
least to lose by offending and so I speak.

Think before you act/speak. *It is a lot easier than taking it back
later.

sheesh!

Thak you for some general advice and platitudes (not a duck-bill
platitude) that I guess we need.

--
Will in New Haven

Will in New Haven wrote in
:

On Apr 30, 4:29*pm, outsider wrote:
First of all I really wish some of the people who post here would calm
the hell down. *I know we are in stressful times but a number of you,
honestly, seem like your near the deep end of the pool (without
flippers).

This newsgroup is far from the only group of people for whom this
woudl be good advice. But it is true that people are often too
emotional.


Yeah but this groups tends toward better than that.










Now as for that really odd assertion that a scientist being more
logical
would therefore be less emotional let me say I have heard some pretty
nutty things and this is up there.

I didn't hear anyone say that but I have not read every post in every
thread.




It was said.









The ability to reason while under strong emotion is not the same as no
emotion. *I am a scientist and am one of the most emotional people I
kn
ow
but reason and experience has taught me over decades that acting
precipitously does not gain good results no matter how strongly I feel
about something. *In fact the stronger I feel the more I want good
results so I channel my emotion into logic and reason. *I can't
imagine
anyone who posts to this group being non-emotional. *I find someone
grading ones level of caring as an inverse to how well one can think
pretty pathetic and maybe a bit transparent.

Another straw man. If you can't come up with a concrete example I
don't think I am going to get worked up about it.



You already said you did not see the post. It was not a straw man. Why
would I bother?





I honestly do not want to hear: *that is not what I said/meant and I
su
re
don't want to read that is not what the op said/meant. *The rancor is
getting tiresome. *I know I am not the only one thinking this put I am
probably the least "popular" one thinking it and that means I have the
least to lose by offending and so I speak.

Think before you act/speak. *It is a lot easier than taking it back
later.

sheesh!

Thak you for some general advice and platitudes (not a duck-bill
platitude) that I guess we need.

--
Will in New Haven




Hey! I like platypie! er I mean platypuses.

"outsider" wrote in message
...
"CatEyes" wrote in
:

"outsider" wrote in message
...
"CatEyes" wrote in
:

"outsider" wrote in message
...

First of all I really wish some of the people who post here would
calm the hell down. I know we are in stressful times but a number
of you, honestly, seem like your near the deep end of the pool
(without flippers).


Now as for that really odd assertion that a scientist being more
logical would therefore be less emotional let me say I have heard
some pretty nutty things and this is up there.


The ability to reason while under strong emotion is not the same as
no emotion. I am a scientist and am one of the most emotional
people I know but reason and experience has taught me over decades
that acting precipitously does not gain good results no matter how
strongly I feel about something. In fact the stronger I feel the
more I want good results so I channel my emotion into logic and
reason. I can't imagine anyone who posts to this group being
non-emotional. I find someone grading ones level of caring as an
inverse to how well one can think pretty pathetic and maybe a bit
transparent.


I honestly do not want to hear: that is not what I said/meant and
I sure don't want to read that is not what the op said/meant. The
rancor is getting tiresome. I know I am not the only one thinking
this put I am probably the least "popular" one thinking it and that
means I have the least to lose by offending and so I speak.

Think before you act/speak. It is a lot easier than taking it back
later.

sheesh!

And what a fine example of that you've given us here! ;

Hugs,

CatNipped





And here we have the completely useless snide comment. Instead of
disagreeing and explaining why we have this.

There you have me pointing out the hypocrisy of your using baiting
language like "seem like your [sic] near the deep end of the pool
(without flippers)", and "I find someone grading ones level of caring
as an inverse to how well one can think pretty pathetic and maybe a
bit transparent," while all the while professing that you are
"scientific" and would not act/speak without thinking. Sayings like
"Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" or that thing about
glass houses come to mind.

If you find it to be satisfyingly self-aggrandizing to come on to the
group and chastise what people do here, well more power to you. But
don't expect me to not point out the fact that you are doing the very
same thing you spurn them for doing.

"God is an iron." ~ Spider Robinson

Hugs,

CatNipped






Well, if you honestly think that telling people they are acting like nut-
jobs is the same as mounting a vile attack against a young man who just
lost his young wife

and

you think that telling people they are acting like nut-jobs is the same
as emailing a vet and making all sort of accusations without any real
information

You are certainly welcome to your opinion.

I think that should you want to chastise people for being inflammatory and
reckless in their writing, you should refrain from doing so yourself in the
process.

Hugs,

CatNipped

"CatEyes" wrote in


I think that should you want to chastise people for being inflammatory
and reckless in their writing, you should refrain from doing so
yourself in the process.

Hugs,

CatNipped


You _certainly_ have a right to feel that way which is why it is good that
it is so easy, on usenet, to read or not read posts as you choose. As for
how I present my opinion I will continue to decide that for myself.

Thank you for clarifying your concern, though. I appreciate it.

Andy

outsider wrote:
MLB wrote in :

Adrian wrote:
MLB wrote:
Matthew wrote:
"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
"Matthew" wrote in message
ng.com...

I am a firm believer in Words have no meaning with out the voice
behind them
So is that *all* of Usenet?

Scary thought YES ;-)

Matthew, please rethink that statement. There is "the good book" ,
lots of good books, and there is radio and television.
What good book is that then? ;-)


The dictionary -- what were you thinking?




I am still stuck on radio and TV. I hear voices on _those_. And no, NOT
when they are turned off.


Do you believe all the words you hear on radio and TV? I am sure you do
not. LOL

MLB wrote in :

outsider wrote:
MLB wrote in
:

Adrian wrote:
MLB wrote:
Matthew wrote:
"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
"Matthew" wrote in message
ng.com...

I am a firm believer in Words have no meaning with out the
voice behind them
So is that *all* of Usenet?

Scary thought YES ;-)

Matthew, please rethink that statement. There is "the good book"
, lots of good books, and there is radio and television.
What good book is that then? ;-)


The dictionary -- what were you thinking?




I am still stuck on radio and TV. I hear voices on _those_. And no,
NOT when they are turned off.


Do you believe all the words you hear on radio and TV? I am sure you
do not. LOL



Got that right!

"outsider" wrote in message
...
"CatEyes" wrote in


I think that should you want to chastise people for being inflammatory
and reckless in their writing, you should refrain from doing so
yourself in the process.

Hugs,

CatNipped


You _certainly_ have a right to feel that way which is why it is good that
it is so easy, on usenet, to read or not read posts as you choose. As for
how I present my opinion I will continue to decide that for myself.

Thank you for clarifying your concern, though. I appreciate it.

Andy

Sure, no problem. The next time you feel the need to point out someone
else's thoughtlessness in a thoughtless manner I'll be sure to point it out
again! ;

Hugs,

CatNipped

"CatEyes" wrote in
:

"outsider" wrote in message
...
"CatEyes" wrote in


I think that should you want to chastise people for being
inflammatory and reckless in their writing, you should refrain from
doing so yourself in the process.

Hugs,

CatNipped


You _certainly_ have a right to feel that way which is why it is good
that it is so easy, on usenet, to read or not read posts as you
choose. As for how I present my opinion I will continue to decide
that for myself.

Thank you for clarifying your concern, though. I appreciate it.

Andy

Sure, no problem. The next time you feel the need to point out
someone else's thoughtlessness in a thoughtless manner I'll be sure to
point it out again! ;

Hugs,

CatNipped






I am pretty sure that is not how eveyone sees what I did but anyway you
understand to keep this promise you will have to continue reading my
posts? Be warned: I might voice a real opinion on something at any
moment.

outsider wrote:

wrote in

Cloaked agenda? Do you mean on my part?

No. This was about the person who made the comment about science people
and it was just a suspicion, that is all. I could be easily wrong.

So, tell me, what *did* you mean by transparent?

I wondered if a hidden meaning was not even meant to be totally hidden.

Thanks, I get it now.

If you were talking about Yowie's post, though, I would have to say
that a cloaked agenda is very unlikely. In my experience of her she's
always been very straightforward.

Or did you mean the response to Yowie's post? I don't remember who it
was from. Anyway, it's all so convoluted by this point that my eyes
are crossed!

--
Joyce ^..^

To email me, remove the XXX from my user name.