Re: Evidence v Conclusions

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

The above is not nonsense. You think it is nonsense because you don't
understand.

>
>
I understand quite well.

It cannot be nonsense then can it?

The cited comments are mindless and infantile.

The usual ad hominems, being the last resort of the incompetent.

>
Your confusion about these things is likely a result of your ignorance
of relevant facts.

More ad hominems. You are either a troll or you have been in this
newsgroup so long you think this is normal behaviour.

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
 

Richmond wrote:
 

j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:

 

That's quite false as there exist many different independent lines
of evidence for the existence of electrons beyond modeling the flow of
electricity.

 

Yes there are, but people often offer electricity, or worse still,
television, as evidence.

 

 Are you even aware of who JJ Thomson is? If so, do you understand

 

Oh it's you again. Are you even aware the standard model is a model?

 Cathode ray tubes don't produce models, they produce electron beams.
 The data interpretation doesn't require the standard model of particle
physics. Neither do slit experiments. What it looks like is there's
a lack of evidence that you understand either bit of evidence. Or have
ever seen that evidence? I'm guessing you never looked. I guess as
long as you play see no, hear no, speak no games, your
assertion will survive your personal belief system.

 What are you talking about you gormless fuckwit?