Comment: Sigh

(See in situ)

In post: .
In reply to comment: Response IV to Eric Hoffer (see in situ)

Sigh

"UH HUH. And what is so beautiful about science...is that truth is not generally relative. The truth doesn't lie. You send mixed signals about "TRUTHERS" who are just after the TRUTH....you know...what REALLY happened."

You're not after Truth, you're chasing down your dream that the towers were nailed with controlled demolition and trying to ram the conclusion down science's throat, while science protests continually.

Please don't give me an "argument from authority" fallacy cock-block that you have "done consulting for a company producing nano-tech materials.

Weren't you at one point questioning my experience here? I'm met nano-scientists. They're not rare. They're not that special. They deal with some cool cutting edge stuff, but Harrit is to nano-scientists what your local Keynesian community college economics teacher is to Austrian economics. He's an associate professor. That's it.

BIG f-u-c-k-i-n-g deal. And yes those nano-tech companies probably are not as concerned about the truth as they are profit so when you are dealing with the level of "magic" all of that is irrelevant.

Well... yeah, they're companies working with nano-technology. I'm sorry, were you looking for some sort of Gandhi of nano-tech?

The TRUTH is king here.

Uh huh. Obviously. Did you read the Milette paper yet?

Eric Hoffer