A recent T.O. topic illustrated a poster's failure to distinguish
between evidence and conclusions based on evidence. My experience is
this is an especially common problem among pseudoskeptics. To further
illustrate the point, the following is a recent X post aka Tweet from
a U.S. Congressperson:

************************************
God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent.
Earthquakes and eclipses and many more things to come.
I pray that our country listens.
*************************************

Stipulating for argument's sake that natural events like earthquakes
and eclipses are evidence of God's displeasure, that would still be no
reasonable basis to conclude what to repent about. ISTM as likely God
is pissed about willfully stupid people invoking God as a means of
virtue signaling.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

> A recent T.O. topic illustrated a poster's failure to distinguish
> between evidence and conclusions based on evidence. My experience is
> this is an especially common problem among pseudoskeptics. To further
> illustrate the point, the following is a recent X post aka Tweet from
> a U.S. Congressperson:
>
> ************************************
> God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent.
> Earthquakes and eclipses and many more things to come.
> I pray that our country listens.
> *************************************
>
> Stipulating for argument's sake that natural events like earthquakes
> and eclipses are evidence of God's displeasure, that would still be no
> reasonable basis to conclude what to repent about. ISTM as likely God
> is pissed about willfully stupid people invoking God as a means of
> virtue signaling.
>
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

But people also say they know electrons exist, whereas they have never
actually seen one, but interpret electricity as evidence of them.

So you could have the same discussion in a less emotive way by
discussing electrons and lightning instead of God and earthquakes.

Richmond wrote:

> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

. . .

> But people also say they know electrons exist, whereas they have never
> actually seen one, but interpret electricity as evidence of them.

> So you could have the same discussion in a less emotive way by
> discussing electrons and lightning instead of God and earthquakes.

That's quite false as there exist many different independent lines
of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling the
flow of electricity.

Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you understand
what he did? And since then there are so many more experiments that
can detect single electrons. It would take perverse mental gymnastics
to view the dynamic data obtained in some of the dual slit electron
diffraction studies to avoid the reality that what is being detected,
AKA "seen", are single electrons.

j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:

> That's quite false as there exist many different independent lines
> of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling the flow of
> electricity.

Yes there are, but people often offer electricity, or worse still,
television, as evidence.

>
> Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you understand

Oh it's you again. Are you even aware the standard model is a model?

Richmond wrote:

> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:

>> That's quite false as there exist many different independent lines
>> of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling the flow of
>> electricity.

> Yes there are, but people often offer electricity, or worse still,
> television, as evidence.

>>
>> Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you understand

> Oh it's you again. Are you even aware the standard model is a model?

Cathode ray tubes don't produce models, they produce electron beams.

The data interpretation doesn't require the standard model of particle
physics. Neither do slit experiments. What it looks like is there's
a lack of evidence that you understand either bit of evidence. Or
have ever seen that evidence? I'm guessing you never looked.
I guess as long as you play see no, hear no, speak no games, your
assertion will survive your personal belief system.

j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:

> Richmond wrote:
>
>> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
>
>>> That's quite false as there exist many different independent lines
>>> of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling the flow of
>>> electricity.
>
>> Yes there are, but people often offer electricity, or worse still,
>> television, as evidence.
>
>>>
>>> Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you understand
>
>> Oh it's you again. Are you even aware the standard model is a model?
>
> Cathode ray tubes don't produce models, they produce electron beams.
>
> The data interpretation doesn't require the standard model of particle
> physics. Neither do slit experiments. What it looks like is there's
> a lack of evidence that you understand either bit of evidence. Or have
> ever seen that evidence? I'm guessing you never looked. I guess as
> long as you play see no, hear no, speak no games, your
> assertion will survive your personal belief system.

What are you talking about you gormless fuckwit?

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
>
>> Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
>>
>>>> That's quite false as there exist many different independent lines
>>>> of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling the flow of
>>>> electricity.
>>
>>> Yes there are, but people often offer electricity, or worse still,
>>> television, as evidence.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you understand
>>
>>> Oh it's you again. Are you even aware the standard model is a model?
>>
>> Cathode ray tubes don't produce models, they produce electron beams.
>>
>> The data interpretation doesn't require the standard model of particle
>> physics. Neither do slit experiments. What it looks like is there's
>> a lack of evidence that you understand either bit of evidence. Or have
>> ever seen that evidence? I'm guessing you never looked. I guess as
>> long as you play see no, hear no, speak no games, your
>> assertion will survive your personal belief system.
>
> What are you talking about you gormless fuckwit?
>
And there we have it.

*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:

> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
>>
>>> Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>>> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
>>>
>>>>> That's quite false as there exist many different independent lines
>>>>> of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling the flow of
>>>>> electricity.
>>>
>>>> Yes there are, but people often offer electricity, or worse still,
>>>> television, as evidence.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you understand
>>>
>>>> Oh it's you again. Are you even aware the standard model is a model?
>>>
>>> Cathode ray tubes don't produce models, they produce electron beams.
>>>
>>> The data interpretation doesn't require the standard model of particle
>>> physics. Neither do slit experiments. What it looks like is there's
>>> a lack of evidence that you understand either bit of evidence. Or have
>>> ever seen that evidence? I'm guessing you never looked. I guess as
>>> long as you play see no, hear no, speak no games, your
>>> assertion will survive your personal belief system.
>>
>> What are you talking about you gormless fuckwit?
>>
> And there we have it.

The problem with this group is people argue with imaginary people. You
see at the end there he talks about my personal belief system, and yet
he has no idea what it is. I said that people interpret electricity as
evidence of electrons, and he says that is false, but I know it is true,
I have spoken to such people.

On 4/6/2024 7:57 AM, jillery wrote:
> A recent T.O. topic illustrated a poster's failure to distinguish
> between evidence and conclusions based on evidence. My experience is
> this is an especially common problem among pseudoskeptics. To further
> illustrate the point, the following is a recent X post aka Tweet from
> a U.S. Congressperson:
>
> ************************************
> God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent.
> Earthquakes and eclipses and many more things to come.
> I pray that our country listens.
> *************************************
>
> Stipulating for argument's sake that natural events like earthquakes
> and eclipses are evidence of God's displeasure, that would still be no
> reasonable basis to conclude what to repent about. ISTM as likely God
> is pissed about willfully stupid people invoking God as a means of
> virtue signaling.
>
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>
The eclipse example indicates that the Congressperson's God planned his
signalling of displeasure billions of years ago when the moon was
created and started it's journey on an expanding orbit. Eventually the
moon will get far enough away from the earth that it will not be able to
occlude the entire sun as seen from the surface of the earth.

We can even predict when Her God will be showing another bout of
displeasure. We just can't predict what the god will be fussing about
at that time.

Ron Okimoto

On 2024-04-06, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
>
>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
>>>
>>>> Richmond wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> That's quite false as there exist many different independent lines
>>>>>> of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling the flow of
>>>>>> electricity.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes there are, but people often offer electricity, or worse still,
>>>>> television, as evidence.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you understand
>>>>
>>>>> Oh it's you again. Are you even aware the standard model is a model?
>>>>
>>>> Cathode ray tubes don't produce models, they produce electron beams.
>>>>
>>>> The data interpretation doesn't require the standard model of particle
>>>> physics. Neither do slit experiments. What it looks like is there's
>>>> a lack of evidence that you understand either bit of evidence. Or have
>>>> ever seen that evidence? I'm guessing you never looked. I guess as
>>>> long as you play see no, hear no, speak no games, your
>>>> assertion will survive your personal belief system.
>>>
>>> What are you talking about you gormless fuckwit?
>>>
>> And there we have it.
>
> The problem with this group is people argue with imaginary people. You
> see at the end there he talks about my personal belief system, and yet
> he has no idea what it is. I said that people interpret electricity as
> evidence of electrons, and he says that is false, but I know it is true,
> I have spoken to such people.
>

He said more than that - and you know it.

Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> writes:

> On 2024-04-06, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>> *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Richmond wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's quite false as there exist many different independent
>>>>>>> lines of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling
>>>>>>> the flow of electricity.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes there are, but people often offer electricity, or worse
>>>>>> still, television, as evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you
>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh it's you again. Are you even aware the standard model is a
>>>>>> model?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cathode ray tubes don't produce models, they produce electron
>>>>> beams.
>>>>>
>>>>> The data interpretation doesn't require the standard model of
>>>>> particle physics. Neither do slit experiments. What it looks like
>>>>> is there's a lack of evidence that you understand either bit of
>>>>> evidence. Or have ever seen that evidence? I'm guessing you never
>>>>> looked. I guess as long as you play see no, hear no, speak no
>>>>> games, your assertion will survive your personal belief system.
>>>>
>>>> What are you talking about you gormless fuckwit?
>>>>
>>> And there we have it.
>>
>> The problem with this group is people argue with imaginary
>> people. You see at the end there he talks about my personal belief
>> system, and yet he has no idea what it is. I said that people
>> interpret electricity as evidence of electrons, and he says that is
>> false, but I know it is true, I have spoken to such people.
>>
>
> He said more than that - and you know it.

I didn't say that that was *all* he said, and you know it. The rest of
what he said was irrelevent and aimed mainly at people who have never
been to school. Does everyone who believes in God believe it because of
earthquakes and eclipses? no, but some people do. Does the fact that
other people believe in God for other reasons mean that no one believes
it because of earthquakes and eclipses? no, that's a silly
assumption. Does everyone who believes in electrons believe in them
because of electricity? no, but some people do. Does the fact that some
people believe in them for other reasons mean that no one believes in
them because of electricity? no, that's a silly assumption.

None of this has anything to do with me. He's arguing with the voices in
his head.

"Cathode ray tubes don't produce models, they produce electron beams." -
Simple begging the question, how does he know they produce electron
beams and not beams of something else?

The slit experiments show that whatever is going through the slit
behaves like a wave as if it has gone through both slits, unless you
intercept it, and then it is like a particle. It doesn't prove anything
about what it is that is going through the slits, that's more begging
the question.

The electron is a theoretical particle, no one really knows if it exists
or what it is. The model makes accurate predictions, and you can believe
they exist on that basis if you like, but you don't know, and you don't
have any proof.

On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 17:36:45 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>The problem with this group is people argue with imaginary people. You
>see at the end there he talks about my personal belief system, and yet
>he has no idea what it is. I said that people interpret electricity as
>evidence of electrons, and he says that is false, but I know it is true,
>I have spoken to such people.

Baseless allusions are evidence of only themselves.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 14:38:14 +0000, j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget)
wrote:

>Richmond wrote:
>
>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

nothing below. Apparently you have a problem with keeping context.

>> But people also say they know electrons exist, whereas they have never
>> actually seen one, but interpret electricity as evidence of them.
>
>> So you could have the same discussion in a less emotive way by
>> discussing electrons and lightning instead of God and earthquakes.
>
>
>That's quite false as there exist many different independent lines
>of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling the
>flow of electricity.
>
>Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you understand
>what he did? And since then there are so many more experiments that
>can detect single electrons. It would take perverse mental gymnastics
>to view the dynamic data obtained in some of the dual slit electron
>diffraction studies to avoid the reality that what is being detected,
>AKA "seen", are single electrons.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 14:09:21 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> A recent T.O. topic illustrated a poster's failure to distinguish
>> between evidence and conclusions based on evidence. My experience is
>> this is an especially common problem among pseudoskeptics. To further
>> illustrate the point, the following is a recent X post aka Tweet from
>> a U.S. Congressperson:
>>
>> ************************************
>> God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent.
>> Earthquakes and eclipses and many more things to come.
>> I pray that our country listens.
>> *************************************
>>
>> Stipulating for argument's sake that natural events like earthquakes
>> and eclipses are evidence of God's displeasure, that would still be no
>> reasonable basis to conclude what to repent about. ISTM as likely God
>> is pissed about willfully stupid people invoking God as a means of
>> virtue signaling.
>>
>> --
>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>
>But people also say they know electrons exist, whereas they have never
>actually seen one, but interpret electricity as evidence of them.
>
>So you could have the same discussion in a less emotive way by
>discussing electrons and lightning instead of God and earthquakes.

We could have had a more rational discussion if that congressperson
hadn't posted the above nonsense. Besides, there's more evidence for
electrons than the mere fact of electricity.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 14:38:14 +0000, j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget)
> wrote:

>>Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

> nothing below. Apparently you have a problem with keeping context.

There exist reasons to delete text that I'm not addressing.
There are reasons to nevertheless leave in a few extra reference
lines, even to deleted text, to maintain header integrity because
that affects how well some newsreaders manage threading.

How's that for context?

>>> But people also say they know electrons exist, whereas they have never
>>> actually seen one, but interpret electricity as evidence of them.
>>
>>> So you could have the same discussion in a less emotive way by
>>> discussing electrons and lightning instead of God and earthquakes.
>>
>>
>>That's quite false as there exist many different independent lines
>>of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling the
>>flow of electricity.
>>
>>Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you understand
>>what he did? And since then there are so many more experiments that
>>can detect single electrons. It would take perverse mental gymnastics
>>to view the dynamic data obtained in some of the dual slit electron
>>diffraction studies to avoid the reality that what is being detected,
>>AKA "seen", are single electrons.

> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 14:09:21 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> A recent T.O. topic illustrated a poster's failure to distinguish
>>> between evidence and conclusions based on evidence. My experience is
>>> this is an especially common problem among pseudoskeptics. To further
>>> illustrate the point, the following is a recent X post aka Tweet from
>>> a U.S. Congressperson:
>>>
>>> ************************************
>>> God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent.
>>> Earthquakes and eclipses and many more things to come.
>>> I pray that our country listens.
>>> *************************************
>>>
>>> Stipulating for argument's sake that natural events like earthquakes
>>> and eclipses are evidence of God's displeasure, that would still be no
>>> reasonable basis to conclude what to repent about. ISTM as likely God
>>> is pissed about willfully stupid people invoking God as a means of
>>> virtue signaling.
>>>
>>> --
>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>
>>But people also say they know electrons exist, whereas they have never
>>actually seen one, but interpret electricity as evidence of them.
>>
>>So you could have the same discussion in a less emotive way by
>>discussing electrons and lightning instead of God and earthquakes.
>
>
> We could have had a more rational discussion if that congressperson
> hadn't posted the above nonsense. Besides, there's more evidence for
> electrons than the mere fact of electricity.

The above is not nonsense. You think it is nonsense because you don't
understand.

Yes there is more evidence, but as I have pointed out, the fact that
there is more evidence does not mean that people do not make the
assertion that electricity is evidence. In fact we've had a variation on
the theme, asserting that an electron beam is evidence of electrons.

This is all reciting scripture, and begging the question. Confusing
evidence with interpretation of evidence, if you like.

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:25:14 +0000, j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget)
wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 14:38:14 +0000, j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget)
>> wrote:
>
>>>Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>> nothing below. Apparently you have a problem with keeping context.
>
>There exist reasons to delete text that I'm not addressing.
>There are reasons to nevertheless leave in a few extra reference
>lines, even to deleted text, to maintain header integrity because
>that affects how well some newsreaders manage threading.
>
>How's that for context?

Since you asked:

As you should know, I regularly delete text to focus on a point that's
orthogonal to the larger context, so that isn't the problem here. The
OP comments you deleted are in fact central to the comments to which
you replied, as that reply was a direct response to the OP. And to
the degree your reply is relevant to the comments to which you
replied, so too are they relevant to the OP comments you deleted and
to the OP topic generally.

Also your alleged concern for header integrity would be better applied
to a concern for context continuity IMO. But since you thought some
comments were so irrelevant to your comments, and/or so contrary to
header integrity, that you went out of your way to delete them,
consistency suggests you delete any references to those deleted
comments, as said references are by definition also equally irrelevant
and/or contrary.

Given the above, I conclude your context above sounds like an excuse
to delete text for reasons which have nothing to do with either
context continuity or header integrity.

You're welcome.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:25:14 +0000, j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget)
> wrote:

>>jillery wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 14:38:14 +0000, j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget)
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>Richmond wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> nothing below. Apparently you have a problem with keeping context.
>>
>>There exist reasons to delete text that I'm not addressing.
>>There are reasons to nevertheless leave in a few extra reference
>>lines, even to deleted text, to maintain header integrity because
>>that affects how well some newsreaders manage threading.
>>
>>How's that for context?

> Since you asked:

> As you should know, I regularly delete text to focus on a point that's
> orthogonal to the larger context, so that isn't the problem here. The
> OP comments you deleted are in fact central to the comments to which
> you replied, as that reply was a direct response to the OP. And to
> the degree your reply is relevant to the comments to which you
> replied, so too are they relevant to the OP comments you deleted and
> to the OP topic generally.

> Also your alleged concern for header integrity would be better applied
> to a concern for context continuity IMO. But since you thought some
> comments were so irrelevant to your comments, and/or so contrary to
> header integrity, that you went out of your way to delete them,
> consistency suggests you delete any references to those deleted
> comments, as said references are by definition also equally irrelevant
> and/or contrary.

> Given the above, I conclude your context above sounds like an excuse
> to delete text for reasons which have nothing to do with either
> context continuity or header integrity.

> You're welcome.

> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

I guess you're butt hurt that you and others didn't get to re-read
your OP. To me it was a distraction. I was focusing countering
the claim that nobody has ever "seen" an electron. "seen" as
to avoid trite interpretations like 'with the naked eye'.

This does not actually match to your original framing. You did
not discuss electrons. And I would disagree with you about your
rather over-simplified distinction between evidence and conclusions
but was not interested in picking that fight, not with you.
It's a philosophy argument with subtle refinements that I
personally would hesitate to engage in within this forum.

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:38:32 +0000, j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget)
wrote:

>I guess you're butt hurt that you and others didn't get to re-read
>your OP.

My comments, which you conveniently ignored, as usual, put the lie to
your guess.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 08:33:06 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 14:09:21 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> A recent T.O. topic illustrated a poster's failure to distinguish
>>>> between evidence and conclusions based on evidence. My experience is
>>>> this is an especially common problem among pseudoskeptics. To further
>>>> illustrate the point, the following is a recent X post aka Tweet from
>>>> a U.S. Congressperson:
>>>>
>>>> ************************************
>>>> God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent.
>>>> Earthquakes and eclipses and many more things to come.
>>>> I pray that our country listens.
>>>> *************************************
>>>>
>>>> Stipulating for argument's sake that natural events like earthquakes
>>>> and eclipses are evidence of God's displeasure, that would still be no
>>>> reasonable basis to conclude what to repent about. ISTM as likely God
>>>> is pissed about willfully stupid people invoking God as a means of
>>>> virtue signaling.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>>
>>>But people also say they know electrons exist, whereas they have never
>>>actually seen one, but interpret electricity as evidence of them.
>>>
>>>So you could have the same discussion in a less emotive way by
>>>discussing electrons and lightning instead of God and earthquakes.
>>
>>
>> We could have had a more rational discussion if that congressperson
>> hadn't posted the above nonsense. Besides, there's more evidence for
>> electrons than the mere fact of electricity.
>
>The above is not nonsense. You think it is nonsense because you don't
>understand.

I understand quite well. The cited comments are mindless and
infantile.

>Yes there is more evidence, but as I have pointed out, the fact that
>there is more evidence does not mean that people do not make the
>assertion that electricity is evidence. In fact we've had a variation on
>the theme, asserting that an electron beam is evidence of electrons.
>This is all reciting scripture, and begging the question. Confusing
>evidence with interpretation of evidence, if you like.

A beam with measurable effects is empirical evidence of the existence
of something material. If that material is called an electron, then
it's reasonable to call that beam an electron beam, by definition.

OTOH electricity is the flow of electric charges, either positive or
negative; even negative charges need not be electrons. In fact,
electricity can be thought of as the flow of regions of deficient aka
a lack of electric charge.

Your confusion about these things is likely a result of your ignorance
of relevant facts.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

>>The above is not nonsense. You think it is nonsense because you don't
>>understand.
>
>
> I understand quite well.

It cannot be nonsense then can it?

> The cited comments are mindless and infantile.

The usual ad hominems, being the last resort of the incompetent.

>
> Your confusion about these things is likely a result of your ignorance
> of relevant facts.

More ad hominems. You are either a troll or you have been in this
newsgroup so long you think this is normal behaviour.

Richmond wrote:

> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

>>>The above is not nonsense. You think it is nonsense because you don't
>>>understand.
>>
>>
>> I understand quite well.

> It cannot be nonsense then can it?

>> The cited comments are mindless and infantile.

> The usual ad hominems, being the last resort of the incompetent.

>>
>> Your confusion about these things is likely a result of your ignorance
>> of relevant facts.

> More ad hominems. You are either a troll or you have been in this
> newsgroup so long you think this is normal behaviour.

Ahem. Quoting an earlier post.

BEGIN QUOTE
> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
>>
>>> Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>>> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
>>>
>>>>> That's quite false as there exist many different independent lines
>>>>> of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling the flow of
>>>>> electricity.
>>>
>>>> Yes there are, but people often offer electricity, or worse still,
>>>> television, as evidence.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you understand
>>>
>>>> Oh it's you again. Are you even aware the standard model is a model?
>>>
>>> Cathode ray tubes don't produce models, they produce electron beams.
>>>
>>> The data interpretation doesn't require the standard model of particle
>>> physics. Neither do slit experiments. What it looks like is there's
>>> a lack of evidence that you understand either bit of evidence. Or have
>>> ever seen that evidence? I'm guessing you never looked. I guess as
>>> long as you play see no, hear no, speak no games, your
>>> assertion will survive your personal belief system.
>>
>> What are you talking about you gormless fuckwit?
END QUOTE

On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 12:55:56 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>>The above is not nonsense. You think it is nonsense because you don't
>>>understand.
>>
>>
>> I understand quite well.
>
>It cannot be nonsense then can it?

Recognizing nonsense does not convert nonsense into sense.
"2+2=spaghetti" is analogous to the cited comments.

>> The cited comments are mindless and infantile.
>
>The usual ad hominems, being the last resort of the incompetent.

Conclusions about comments are in no way ad hominens. You are either
a troll, or you have conflated the two for so long you think this is
normal behavior. That you make no effort to support your baseless
opinions is strong evidence of the former.

>> Your confusion about these things is likely a result of your ignorance
>> of relevant facts.
>
>More ad hominems. You are either a troll or you have been in this
>newsgroup so long you think this is normal behaviour.

Yeah, I get such ad hominems a lot from willfully stupid trolls.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery wrote:

> Stipulating for argument's sake that natural events like earthquakes
> and eclipses are evidence of God's displeasure, that would still be no
> reasonable basis to conclude what to repent about.

Wow, you're *Really* going out on the limb there!

So brave of you...courageous...the great risks you
take in the name of science...

I'd say that I'm in awe of you but I doubt you'd
recognize the sarcasm!

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 16:11:27 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> trolled:

>I'd say that I'm in awe of you but I doubt you'd
>recognize the sarcasm!

Thank you for your unprofessional and unauthoritative opinion.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge