Steel Floor Panels, Metal Decking on each Floor in the WTC Buildings

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue said:

Dear God ... really ... you B'man, yes YOU, made a WRONG claim and got shown it wrong, but you're still trying to spin it !!!

YOU B'man ... nobody else ... just YOU stated a WRONG thing, YOU made a completely erroneous statement about a FACTUAL event, you got shown it as a WRONG thing, you stated something that did NOT happen as a fact, yet it WASN'T a fact, it was WRONG ... and here you are still trying to wriggle out of it by "thinking" yourself still not wrong.

This is insane B'man ... just grow a backbone and admit you made a mistake, the world will not come to an end and it will show that not only do you have some small intellectual courage it will also show that you are interested in genuine truth.

Something is either factual or it is not ... getting it wrong IS being wrong ... the end of !!!

Click to expand...

It's funny, because you read only enough of her quotes to make YOUR point and then ignore the part where she makes my point.

That's not mental gymnastics, that's just the way it is... No need to tear up about it.

BmanMcfly said:

It's funny, because you read only enough of her quotes to make YOUR point and then ignore the part where she makes my point.

That's not mental gymnastics, that's just the way it is... No need to tear up about it.

Click to expand...

Should be real easy for you to QUOTE her exactly then, won't it B'man ... show these bits where she somehow makes your point ... come on ... but kinda funny how you say that in that you NEVER even mentioned her words in any of what you commented on previously, it was ME alone whom quoted Marie Pileni ... so show WHICH bits of her statements prove your point ... you stated quite categorically AND WRONGLY that the editor resigned "because" of the content and that she did not "want" it published ... that was simply all wrong ... so please do B'man, show us all how desperate you are to score however minor or pointless a victory here, and show us WHERE EXACTLY the editor said anything that that backs up what you said.

I'll wait ...

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue said:

Should be real easy for you to QUOTE her exactly then, won't it B'man ... show these bits where she somehow makes your point ... come on ... but kinda funny how you say that in that you NEVER even mentioned her words in any of what you commented on previously, it was ME alone whom quoted Marie Pileni ... so show WHICH bits of her statements prove your point ... you stated quite categorically AND WRONGLY that the editor resigned "because" of the content and that she did not "want" it published ... that was simply all wrong ... so please do B'man, show us all how desperate you are to score however minor or pointless a victory here, and show us WHERE EXACTLY the editor said anything that that backs up what you said.

I'll wait ...

Click to expand...

Oh, thanks for making me double check... you quote mined her response and ignored the FOLLOWING SENTENCE AFTER what you quoted. :
"I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal."

Not the findings THE TOPIC.

End of story, now quit crying and actually debunk this article if it offends you so much instead of taking up TWO THREADS because you can't maintain a train of thought in a single one.

In other words, quit wasting my time with your nonsense. This is growing tedious.

BmanMcfly said:

Oh, thanks for making me double check... you quote mined her response and ignored the FOLLOWING SENTENCE AFTER what you quoted. :
"I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal."

Not the findings THE TOPIC.

End of story, now quit crying and actually debunk this article if it offends you so much instead of taking up TWO THREADS because you can't maintain a train of thought in a single one.

In other words, quit wasting my time with your nonsense. This is growing tedious.

Click to expand...

And YOUR biggest problem is that that sentence does NOT actually support your assertion that she did not "want" it published ... for she said this AFTER it already been published WITHOUT her even seeing it, this was a HINDSIGHT statement of hers and this is her saying that yes, HAD seen it she would not have authorised its publication not because of the topic per se ... but BECAUSE it was NOT ABOUT PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY ... the TOPIC was just NOT physical chemistry.

"I can not accept that the issue is put in my journal. The article is not about physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political point of view behind the publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal."

Bentham Editor In Chief Quits after Jones article - JREF Forum

So not only have you misquoted her ... you still got it wrong in that she CLEARLY said it was NOT a topic that the journal was about ... nothing like what you are trying to assert

You are getting terribly tedious here in defending something you got so horribly wrong ... so what spin shall you be doing now ... can you really go any further than try to hoof back in time what she said AFTER it had already been published.

Doesn't the reality that is was published SHOW you she did NOT have any say-so in the first place ... re-writting history does not work B'man ... she clearly said it was NOT the RIGHT kind of topic for that particular journal ???

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue said:

And YOUR biggest problem is that that sentence does NOT actually support your assertion that she did not "want" it published ... for she said this AFTER it already been published WITHOUT her even seeing it, this was a HINDSIGHT statement of hers and this is her saying that yes, HAD seen it she would not have authorised its publication not because of the topic per se ... but BECAUSE it was NOT ABOUT PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY ... the TOPIC was just NOT physical chemistry.

"I can not accept that the issue is put in my journal. The article is not about physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political point of view behind the publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal."

Bentham Editor In Chief Quits after Jones article - JREF Forum

So not only have you misquoted her ... you still got it wrong in that she CLEARLY said it was NOT a topic that the journal was about ... nothing like what you are trying to assert

You are getting terribly tedious here in defending something you got so horribly wrong ... so what spin shall you be doing now ... can you really go any further than try to hoof back in time what she said AFTER it had already been published.

Doesn't the reality that is was published SHOW you she did NOT have any say-so in the first place ... re-writting history does not work B'man ... she clearly said it was NOT the RIGHT kind of topic for that particular journal ???

Click to expand...

One big long drawn out straw man argument... Actually multiple straw men arguments all piled together.

Doesn't change that she did not want to see the TOPIC appear...

Might as well just change the subject since you don't even want to discuss the real issue at play.

It was Bush with a Bic lighter who caused all this damage.

BmanMcfly said:

One big long drawn out straw man argument... Actually multiple straw men arguments all piled together.

Doesn't change that she did not want to see the TOPIC appear...

Might as well just change the subject since you don't even want to discuss the real issue at play.

Click to expand...

And yet again you get it all so wrong ... how could she not "want" something she did NOT see AT THAT TIME to appear ... making the LATER statement that AS it was NOT ABOUT the topic of the magazine and were she to HAVE seen it she would not have approved it is NOT her just saying she did not "want" it ... she was making a statement AFTER the fact and in HINDSIGHT (do you even know what that word means).

And she would have made the CORRECT editorial one in that the topic was NOT in the right field for that issue ... but here you are yet STILL are attempting to make it seem personal and political ... you are WRONG in that.

And how, in all reality, is me trying to drum in into you how wrong you are here somehow yet again "spun" into me avoiding anything ???

What exactly am I supposed to be avoiding anyway ... you are the one getting pwned big style here ... as the world and their dog can see in your COMPLETE SILENCE of the simple hard real fact of Basile being acknowledged in the original paper which thereby negates any attempt to claim him independant !!!

Is that WHY you are making such a song and dance here to cover up getting such a simple historical factual thing wrong ???

Do you really think people forget that easy ???

The correct answers to all the above questions will be a resounding yes !!!

You also still do not have any genuine understanding of what constitutes a strawman ... I have been bang on topic every single post, it is YOU whom is attempting to shift the focus to what YOU "think" she meant.