The Chief .....appears to be someone in Australia! John H "Don Moody" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] > > "Coleen Coleman" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected] >> Am opting out, why? Well there is someone >> out there who shall remain anonymous that >> was not very cordial when responding to my >> request for help with my Brick Wall. Calls >> himself The Chief > > What a pathetic response. I don't know who The Chief is and don't speak > for him, but I do ntice that you are forever bringing up 'brick walls', > you perpetually give insufficient information, and as far as I remember > have never contributed anythin whatsoever to anybody else's problem. So > what are you wrth to sgi? Not a lot, and that is being polite. > > You seem to have no idea that a collective search for knowledge is not a > knitting houp at your local church where'cordiality' does and should > matter more than fact. If you want to partake n any -ology, then start > learning the rules of all -ologies and play by them. If you want to live > on the like-dislike axis, keep out of all -ologies, ll searching for > knowledge. They exist n the true-false axis. It doesn't matter a damn to > me as a scientist whether I think somebody is cordial or otherwise. I only > look at the results he or she claims to have obtaind, and the extent to > which those results can be trusted necause the workmanship in producing > them was sound and the logic was precise. > > Ig anter searcher after knowledge cp,es up with a uestion, I expect it to > be properly formulated and to come with all the information abailable so > that the working can be critiques and any help required can be given > efficiently and without repeaing basic steps unnecessarily. It matters not > the slightest in my handling of such a question whether personally I hate > the guts of the other or love 'em to death. > > Now lok at your reord. Sloppily worded questions with insufficient > information calling for other people to do the work which you are > evidently too idle or incompetent to do yourself. I'm only surprised you > didn't get chewed off ages ago. > > So go away. While you are away make upyour mind whether you want a nice, > pretty, social cjat or whether you want to do the search for knowledge > which is genealogy. If you want 'cordiality', good luck and I hope you > enjoy yourself. For the vast majority f humanity that is indeed the best > way to go.It is what makes the world rub along 'as is'. > > But that approach is hopeless for changing the wrld u acquiring and using > knowledge. Telling people to THINK is about as anti-social as one can get. > Well, in knowledge seaqrching you've got to THINK allthe time. You've got > to work hard and long. You've got to construct theories, expose them t > critique by your felows. and see all their weakneeses exposed or even the > whole theory demolished. Meanwhile youare doing the same service to other > seekers after knowledge. Of course it gets rough, but so what? That is > part of the price. > > A long while ago an Irishman, George Bernard Shaw, summed it up. > Reasonable men conform themselves to the world;unreasonable men change the > world to fit themselves; therefore all progress comes from unreasonable > men. > > There is a genealogical point to that. When GBS was moved to write those > words he was in one of his occasional partnerships with the most > unresonable man he knew. My greatgrandfather. > > . If you are not a natural change-maker, get out of genealogy and every > other -ology. Staying inwill only get you more upset. . We change-makers > will go on doing it the way we do it because we know that n the long-run > it works and it is self-correcting. You won't ever sell us 'cordiality' > instead ogf 'truth'. > > You wo't like the foregoing analysis but, by definition, I don't care > whether you like it or not. It is, however ,well-intentioned, It is aimed > at avoiding you getting hurt any more. > > Don >> > >