This is the email I got this morning about this F6FLT person:
"Sorry about F6FLT.
The forum was really much happier before this toxic personality started strutting around and marking his territory.
If you scroll back in time you'll find things were much more sane and productive beforehand."
I guess that's what others have also observed about you. It is you who has a high opinion of yourself. And did you produce anything useful? As I said, there are thousands of chargers that have been useful enough to restore hundreds of thousands of batteries all around the world. I think that says a lot. And there are thousands of others that would say the opposite of what you say. But for some reason you have an axe to grind. Why don't you tell me how useful you are here on this forum? With all your toxic strutting what have you to show anyone? Mere criticisms of others? And why resort to ad hominem fallacies rather than decent dialogue with someone you have never met before? Are you that afraid of me that you have rail on me to try and scare people away? Are you that immature that you have to resort to such insults rather than with science. If you have the corner on truth, then by all means shows us the way. Or is this other member right that you are just a "toxic personality strutting around and marking your territory"?
You have made the claim that I "do not produce anything useful." I doubt that you even know what I have produced. But that is a claim that needs proof. It is a slander. Who made you the judge? Are you the gatekeeper here?
No I don't claim to prove what I am saying to people over the internet. Some people here are my customers and have the proof for themselves. If that wasn't the case I wouldn't have been invited Mr. Toxic. Did I say I want "all claims to be accepted"? No. On the contrary. No one should accept any claims from anyone. It appears that you guys were trying to move in the right direction but you really didn't think this whole thing through properly. You only took the idea to a certain level. It is not the making of a claim that is wrong, but it is the believing of claims that is the mistake. You all are making claims that you do this or that or that such and such is true or false. This is exactly what you are doing about me here. You say I "do not produce anything useful." Yet I produce battery chargers that at the very least charge up batteries. That is useful so your claim is manifestly false. But you don't see the OUR police silencing you on that slander claim. Claims here are mere opinions and people should not be so uptight about what people say. It's fine to encourage people to share their claims as mere hypothesis or suggestions, but you really need to be consistent with such things across the board. Mr. Toxic wants to be exempt from this. He expects to be believed in his claims without reason. He then claims that I expect to be believed when I don't ever say that. He expects me to prove things that are impossible to prove over the internet. That's really twisting things up. I never wrote that people need to prove that claims are false through a forum. More twisting. I wrote that positive and negative claims are actually the same. Just as you can't prove an OU claim over the internet, even with third party claims over the internet (I don't know if you guys do anything more here in the real world or if this is just over the internet), in the same way you can't disprove an OU claim over the internet. That is the big fallacy of all these forums. So this is the big fallacy people have been fooled by these forums for years. So much time wasted in thinking that things are proven and disproven when it is not rational to make such conclusion without real-world testing by yourself. No one should be your judge and master. I would expect these things to make sense to at least some of you people. I mean, aren't you people made up of your dissatisfaction about other forums that play such games? Well here is a toxic personality who is playing the same games here. Coming on strong as if some kind of authority, trying to intimidate me right off the bat so that his game will not be exposed here. Just look at the seething rage coming off of his keyboard. He is desperate and has to resort to fallacy and twisting of words. He makes me say just the opposite because he is in such a rush to crush me at all costs. Well it just proves my point. You see I can prove such things because you all personally can see these words if you bother to read them honestly.
I really don't understand how I have regularly told you guys anything. I have only posted a few times here. So what is that about? It is ironic that Mr. Toxic claims the opposite of what I said while doing the very thing he accuses me of. He actually wants all claims accepted, when I don't, and also provided no justification for that claim while attacking me for his claim that I was providing no justification for something I didn't claim. Wow! Talk about a confused guy. So quick to accuse that he has to do the very thing he is accusing me of, which is the very thing I am denying. All right, now that we have that cleared up can we be friends
Anyway, the idea of counter-claims needing justification is self-evident. What makes positive claims so different than negative ones? Who decides the context here? Is mainstream theory just accepted by everyone here to be gospel truth? Is the arrogance of the history of science, which is one long chain of assuming everything is known that can be known, the standard of truth? Is there nothing yet to be discovered? Can anyone prove the conservation of energy law to be universal? Now I didn't say counter-claims needed to be proven over the forum, as neither positive or counter-claims can be so proven. But I did say they are the same thing. Every truth of demonstration needs to be properly demonstrated. And a video cannot do that. Nor can testimonies, however many, over the internet. Is that so hard to understand?
A disproof claim is no different than a positive claim. Both can only be sufficient when the fulfill the conditions of rational conviction, something Mr. Toxic has no interest in learning about. Apparently, according to members here he is more interested in "strutting around and marking his territory." There can be no rational conviction about any truths of demonstration over the internet. They have to be experienced in the real world where people can really monitor all the environmental conditions and verify every part and relationship. But why would this only apply to positive claims? The disproof claim is no different. And it is actually much harder to do because you actually have to know exactly what the positive claim is and ensure that you have replicated it exactly. It is very easy to mischaracterize someone else as we see Mr. Toxic do even with my words. Or are you guys promoting a double standard here?
Again, I am not saying claims should be believed, or that people should even bother with all the many claims that are made. I am not demanding that claims be disproved at all. Only that the burden of proof is on the claim whether it be positive or negative. And there is no proof through the internet in matters that need demonstration.
Anyway, anything less than this is folly and this is an example of a toxic personality "who try to manipulate their audience" into just believing their slander claims without "justification."
So how is it that you bring up what is falsifiable? Can you falsify anything like this over the internet? You have a double standard here because you haven't even thought this through and do not understand basic logic or the nature of proof. What you are demonstrating is like someone thinking that reality TV is the real world when it is only seen through a screen. How can you falsify a counter-claim that is not observable in the real world and only through the internet and/or with more testimonies given over the internet. The claim is unfalsifiable. You have really put your foot in your big mouth my toxic friend.
"Should we justify" new forms of energy harvesting "doesn't exist"? You are just using diverting fallacies and they are only exposing your ignorance Mr. Know-it-all-double-standard. You beg the question. And I have to ask, what is the purpose of such a forum if it is so presumptuous as to ridicule people claiming to develop new forms of energy harvesting? Mr. Toxic is just here to brand whatever he doesn't believe as a pink unicorn. He has actually made the claim that needs proving as he so expects from me. He is expecting others to believe his claims without justification. He uses fallacies of authoritarianism as if he is some authority that just should be believed in his claims. He uses ad baculum fallacies, and threatens you with verbal abuse if you disbelieve or challenge his claims. Almost every fallacy in the book in just a few posts. It was so bad I got this email today apologizing for the rest of you people here.
Again, he doesn't understand basic logic and has not looked in the mirror to realize that he is doing the very thing he is wrongly accusing me of. It's really sad people do this.
"What is claimed without proof can be denied without proof." The denial is a claim in itself. This is not accurate. What is claimed without proof may be disregarded without proof. We do not have the ability to know that something is not true just because it is presented without proof. Think about that for a minute. What makes anyone certain that a claim is false just because it is not proven? All you would have to do is state a claim and people could be justified in claiming it was not true merely because they didn't properly prove it. And this happens all the time and the truth is maligned by those who misrepresent it. Kind of like what Mr. Toxic is doing here when you tries to sound like he knows something about logic or proof or even science. It's really sad.
The truth is that anything claimed is merely a hypothesis verbalized. We usually need some justification for considering it. There are some inconsistent rules here on this forum that try to address that. Very good. So we can ignore any claim that doesn't warrant investigation or our attention. But that is not the same thing as having a license to claim that it is therefore false. This is what Mr. Toxic thinks he has the liberty to do. He is thus encouraging both credulity and incredulity at the same time. He has watered a circle around this forum as his territory to enforce his prejudice upon all of you. And this is the very reason why this forum will go nowhere as you participate in this double standard illogical hypocrisy. So in his own words: "We can therefore deny what he is telling us as long as he is unable to formulate things that make sense and are verifiable." Was anything he said verifiable? Did it even make sense? No. No. But can we really deny what someone says even if it is not verified or seems to make sense to us? Sounds more like saying if we don't understand what people are saying then we just can't affirm it. But to deny something is to make a claim about it. He just doesn't get how he overreaches in his argumentation. He is so aggressive that he has to try and prove more than he can or ought to in an argument. He is attacking at any cost by any means to the point that he does the very things he accuses me of, and that illogically.
There is no mention of even what "things" don't "make sense" so therefore, by his own standard, there is no "justification" for such claims. This is just one big ad hominem fallacy.
"We save time that we can devote to the search for overunity, it is always better to rely on ourselves than on self-proclaimed prophets."
"We save time that we can devote to the search for" things considered impossible and are claimed by people as real, "it is always better to rely on ourselves than on self-proclaimed" authoritarians that exemplify a double standard. What justification do you even have for searching for OU when most of the world argues exactly like you do and dismisses it as believing in "pink unicorns"? You mock people in the same way. Can you even tell us one reason why you are justified in this pursuit? That would be the first place to start. Here we have the expert recommending you all to search for OU. Will you insist that he justify that? He is recommending the belief in something the world thinks is crazy nonsense (all the language he uses against me here). If he has a reason I think you would all be benefitted by this. Usually such loudmouths, as we see on OU.com right now, are unwilling to tell us the basis for belief in OU pursuits. And hiding this from others is not helpful. If they have any rational reason then it would be very useful for people to consider such things and build upon it. But instead they usually sit back in an authority chair and poke at others and waiting for someone to do the real work for them. Hopefully that is not the case here. Well anyway, we can see who the "self-proclaimed prophet" is here.
Claims in matters of demonstration are not bad things to be afraid of.
Positive claims are really the same as negative claims.
This forum and the whole internet cannot prove or disprove a claim that is a matter of demonstration.
Deal with that politely and rationally!
blah blah blah
Hell is paved with good intentions, and others much less good. I am not here to listen to the psychological digressions of people who feel so uncomfortable that they have to make their apology, having a high opinion of themselves although they do not produce anything useful.
The only thing I'm saying is that Rick Friedrich regularly tells us nonsense and that he can't prove what he's saying. This is what makes him stand out from the anonymity and we understand why he wants all claims to be accepted, whether or not their justifications are provided, and those who criticize them to be censored.
His demand that it be up to us to provide proof that what he says is false ("But you have to apply the same rule for counter claims) is found in all sectarian gurus and charlatans who try to manipulate their audience: it is to reverse the burden of proof while their non-sense are not falsifiable in Popper's sense, so their demand is a logical impossibility.
Should we justify that the Pink Unicorn doesn't exist, if he ever claimed otherwise?! Of course not. What is claimed without proof can be denied without proof. We can therefore deny what he is telling us as long as he is unable to formulate things that make sense and are verifiable. We save time that we can devote to the search for overunity, it is always better to rely on ourselves than on self-proclaimed prophets.
Author
Topic: Ricks best video's (Read 58664 times)
