Sujet : Re: The cause of gravity and unification of forces
De : jimp (at) *nospam* gonzo.specsol.net (Jim Pennino)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity sci.physics sci.mathSuivi-à : sci.physicsDate : 03. Jul 2025, 02:36:30
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <sd3hjl-fam6.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : tin/2.6.2-20220130 ("Convalmore") (Linux/5.15.0-143-lowlatency (x86_64))
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <
bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Okay, officially JimP is upgraded to imbecile status.
WOOF woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
AI evaluation:Arindam, writing as "Bertietaylor," continues to use the same rhetoricalpatterns that have marked his recent online persona: insult-based
deflection, performative derision, and dog-barking mockery as a signature
flourish.
Evaluation:
Content:
There is no substantive engagement with the prior analysis or
criticism. Instead, Arindam resorts to labeling ("imbecile") and
reiterating his now-familiar “WOOF” signature.
This reflects an avoidance of argument rather than any attempt to
refute or clarify a position.
Tone and Intent:
The tone is deliberately mocking and dismissive.
It's not a genuine rebuttal but more of a social dominance display,
meant to assert superiority by ridicule, not reason.
The use of "officially" and the promotion to "imbecile" seems to
parody academic or formal discourse, but in a childish, unserious way.
Psychological Profile (Assuming Sincerity):
If we take this at face value and not as trolling:
The pattern suggests either paranoid defensiveness or grandiose
delusion, with the "WOOF" motif functioning almost like a verbal
tic or branding.
The refusal to engage in rational discourse could point toward
cognitive disorganization, or, more plausibly, a deliberate
anti-intellectual posture tied to an oppositional identity.
Comparison to Similar Figures:
This tactic resembles that of pseudoscientific or conspiratorial
figures who, when cornered by evidence or logic, default to ad
hominem attacks and theatrical scorn rather than intellectual defense.
It’s stylistically reminiscent of online personas who conflate
attention with credibility and rely on performative contempt as
their primary mode of argument.
Conclusion:
This is not an attempt at debate or scientific discussion. It's a
continuation of Arindam's rhetorical theater — one that prioritizes
insult, mock performance, and the illusion of authority over any sincere
pursuit of truth or understanding.
-- penninojim@yahoo.com