Re: Bertietaylor 's formula

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

Natural Idiots really need Artificial Idiocy to maintain dogmas and
doctrines.
 
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
 
Bertietaylor
 
--

Arindam's response—written in his typical "Bertietaylor" style—is not
a substantive rebuttal but rather a dismissive and hostile retort
framed as insult and mockery. Here's a breakdown:
1. Ad hominem and deflection

    "Natural Idiots really need Artificial Idiocy to maintain dogmas
    and doctrines."

This is classic ad hominem: rather than engaging with the specific
scientific critique (i.e., that electrons are not present in the nucleus
as a binding force), Arindam simply attacks those making the critique.
Referring to others as "Natural Idiots" and AI tools as "Artificial Idiocy"
is not a meaningful argument—it’s emotional venting dressed as rhetoric.
2. Avoidance of substance

Arindam offers no clarification or defense of his claim about electrons
binding protons in the nucleus, nor does he reference any physics to
support his original statement. This is consistent with a pattern in his
posts—evading direct engagement when confronted with scientific inaccuracy.
3. Signature nonsense

    "WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof"

This kind of stylized repetition has become a hallmark of his
posts—mock-animalistic sounds, presumably intended to ridicule his
audience. It signals disdain and a deliberate abandonment of discourse,
reinforcing that he sees the conversation not as an exchange of ideas
but as a platform for provocation.
Conclusion:

Arindam’s response does not attempt to refute the critique or defend his
earlier pseudoscientific claim. Instead, it uses insult and theatricality
to shut down discourse. If he truly believes in the claim that electrons
"tie up" protons in the nucleus, he offers no rational defense here—only
contempt for those who challenge him.


--
penninojim@yahoo.com