College Football Fan Site Area 51 @CFB51; dead nuts accurate

One community smart about college football

Civil discussion, topics, and reading of both original and aggregated news.


Author Topic: OT: Online Civility  (Read 806 times)

Online Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 2504
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #120 on: November 08, 2018, 09:25:41 PM »
It's all like football - that tipped pass was intercepted, or fell on the turf, that QB spotted a receiver breaking open, or he didn't, the referee saw holding, or he didn't, the guy fumbled because a helmet hit the ball just so, or it didn't.

Online Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 2504
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #121 on: November 08, 2018, 09:26:48 PM »

Online Anonymous Coward

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #122 on: November 09, 2018, 12:15:17 AM »
@Hoss  and I are good friends off the boards… (on the boards I hate him..heh).  We disagree politically...  But not in the sense left or right… or D vs R.   We have our leans but most of the time, when you actually have the discussion, there is more overlap in opinion than disagreement.  And that disagreement usually is around how rather than what.   For whatever reason, we’re both fine with the other not agreeing.   If anything I think we appreciate not agreeing.   Echo chambers are boring.  But because we know each other and give each other enough crap… our ego’s are not involved.  It’s ok to evolve an opinion based upon what the other said.  It’s ok to be wrong because you lack information.  It’s also ok to appreciate a point of view due to a different experience.  But mostly, Hoss knows I'm right..

Our culture, at least on twitter, FB or message boards, ego’s get in the way....   It’s about being right more than discussing.  A disagreement means someone is insulting you…  and discussions turn into demonizing because it is easier to dismiss you due to a moral flaw than it is to engage in understanding and finding a middle ground.  

JMO... but I see a big difference in how people interact between friends and on message boards...
This was very nice and insightful. A common error I think people make is that "I believe something good and therefore those who disagree must be bad." There are several logical mistakes there, and despite my optimism about most things, the prevalence of this on all sides sure can be depressing.
It isn't popular, but I tend to veer hard in the opposite direction -- that there are zero good or bad people. Just people. Being people. Acting in predictable ways based on their order of events since leaving the birth canal. Such that, today, or at any point, each of us has our ratio of good or bad (occasionally horrifying) behaviors. But that's about how we animate, not about who we are. That contrary to most identity teachings, we are not our actions. And though bad-behaving people often deserve to stop being trusted (because bad patterns are nevertheless real), no one is technically irredeemable.
I have no interest in being a cultist and am not trying to convert anyone to my side. And yet I do feel like several categories of problems could be improved if "My opponent is a bad person" became extinct for whichever reason, and my reason is because bad people don't exist in the first place.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 12:22:49 AM by Anonymous Coward »

Online MrNubbz

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1762
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #123 on: November 09, 2018, 07:35:31 AM »
 And yet I do feel like several categories of problems could be improved if "My opponent is a bad person" became extinct for whichever reason, and my reason is because bad people don't exist in the first place.
You haven't been reading the Unabombers Manifesto again have you?
"Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same."- Oscar Wilde

Online Anonymous Coward

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #124 on: November 09, 2018, 08:19:38 AM »
You haven't been reading the Unabombers Manifesto again have you?
That's certainly the most logically extreme and rare case. And still: Just a person. Whose behaviors happen to be horrifying. People like that are never worth trusting. And always worth punishing (because societal standards are essential).
But they are also a somewhat predictable product of their environment (whether deterministically or probabilistically):
For this, imagine a hundred or ten-thousand people who grew up in loving families in healthy communities in a thriving era, never abused, and even add that none of them are ever taken in by manipulative role models with hateful things to say. Now, watch as they grow up. How many of them turn out totally normal/healthy (in that meh/fine/good/great range)? ...
Now, take those people you imagined and put them all in shitty families, in damaged communities, in an era of fear or deprivation, and perhaps even with dangerous role models, and watch how they turn out. The same people, born with the same human potential, same brains: Except this time the same cohort is worse off. It's predictable that they'd finish less normal/healthy (fewer of them in that meh/fine/good/great range).
Of course, I have to admit I don't know how large the cohort needs to be before horrifying behaviors in the second group start leading to, well, murder. But it's certainly more likely for them than for group #1.
Again. Still horrifying. Still essential to punish. But even in this rare and extreme situation, I believe it's still behavior. Not an inherent thing about the person. That many people may be so far gone (prone to bad behavior) that they are realistically beyond saving, but nevertheless no one is technically irredeemable.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 08:48:55 AM by Anonymous Coward »

Online Anonymous Coward

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #125 on: November 09, 2018, 08:27:45 AM »
And that irredeemableness is key. If the way you use the terms "good person" and "bad person" for Joe Schlub changes every day based on whether Joe acts good or bad, then you're largely agreeing with me because you are just judging his behaviors ... except you may have the habit of equating that with who Joe is.
But that's not how most people use those terms "good people" and "bad peoples." We usually use them as tidy bins to place a person and then never switch them in or out again. And it's that usage that I'm saying isn't real. Is illogical. That irredeemableness doesn't exist.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 08:50:48 AM by Anonymous Coward »

Online Anonymous Coward

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #126 on: November 09, 2018, 08:38:36 AM »
A good chunk of my mindset here is derived from the Fundamental Attribution Error, which is a logical fallacy about judging people (for who they are in terms of their value as people) on the basis of their behaviors.
That we tend to judge others as bad for doing something bad, whereas for ourselves, we never say we are bad people when we behave terribly. Instead, we appeal to circumstances and explain why we are good people who messed up that time. And partly to eliminate that double standard but also because it is a far more optimistic outlook, I choose to believe that we are correct in how we address ourselves and that others deserve an identical treatment.
That all people are just people behaving in any maddening, boring, or uplifting variety of ways based largely on their history since birth and their circumstances in each moment when they do that thing we judge.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 08:43:22 AM by Anonymous Coward »

Online Drew4UTk

  • Administrator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2342
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #127 on: November 09, 2018, 09:09:31 AM »

It isn't popular, but I tend to veer hard in the opposite direction -- that there are zero good or bad people. Just people. 
Sir, respectfully, this is far from correct.  there are people who are just plain bad.  relative to standards of the culture, "contract with society" and all that jazz even accounted for- there are people who just want to see and do bad things.  i will strike a comment as such up as 'lack of exposure' as opposed to willingness of applying relativism of morals. 
i had a long response posted that offered some of the things i've seen in my travels first hand, but they are personal and should stay that way.  there is evil, and there is good i am certain.  they may coexist (and do) in the same person (most people) with a ever fluctuating dynamic, but... there are some that are lost in whole and seemingly driven by the desire to be bad. 
you can attempt an objective vantage as if extracting yourself from the experiment of human nature and postulate 'there are no good or bad people, just people', but it doesn't add up.  There is possibly a layer below the surface that could prove your position, but the surface will kill your ass dead and with a quickness long before you even scratch it and without concern of your suspicions or understandings IF you get the opportunity to meet a truly 'bad' person who has this intent for whatever reason- which renders your position moot- because you're part of this experiment too whether you want to be or not. 

Online Anonymous Coward

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #128 on: November 09, 2018, 09:17:59 AM »
On the first paragraph, I disagree as strongly as you do with me. And that's OK. I think humans are prone to projection. That all of us have that evil you describe in us, too, and good for us to usually suppress it! But when we see others failing to suppress it, we label them as irredeemable. Nevertheless, when we give that label, we nearly always ignore the story that got the person to that moment and are also judging them for behavior that we'd treat somewhat differently if it came from ourselves instead of them. And I think those are major errors on our end.

At the same time, I'm in medicine. I've seen a significant quantity of the horrifying. Kindly try not to patronize me as only having this opinion because I have the luxury of naivety. Because that degrades the conversation by assuming I've seen only lollipops and risks turning this into a competition of who's seen worse, which is below us.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 09:30:51 AM by Anonymous Coward »

Online Anonymous Coward

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #129 on: November 09, 2018, 09:24:20 AM »
you can attempt an objective vantage as if extracting yourself from the experiment of human nature and postulate 'there are no good or bad people, just people', but it doesn't add up.  There is possibly a layer below the surface that could prove your position, but the surface will kill your ass dead and with a quickness long before you even scratch it and without concern of your suspicions or understandings IF you get the opportunity to meet a truly 'bad' person who has this intent for whatever reason- which renders your position moot- because you're part of this experiment too whether you want to be or not.
I have no illusions about what ills may befall me if I run into a horrifyingly-behaving person. For many of them, I acknowledge how unrealistic it is that they will change how prone they are to terrible behavior. That's why, so many times, I wrote that it's essential to punish and good practice to never trust them.
But I do take the step to insist it isn't because they are technically irredeemable but because a person whose story and behaviors are that far gone is highly unlikely to stop behaving horrifyingly.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 09:34:28 AM by Anonymous Coward »

Online Drew4UTk

  • Administrator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2342
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #130 on: November 09, 2018, 09:55:28 AM »
i didn't mean to come off patronizing at all.  Apologies for it being presented in a way that allowed that perception.

i think the point i was trying to make did find target, though, in the last post-

I have no illusions about what ills may befall me if I run into a horrifyingly-behaving person. For many of them, I acknowledge how unrealistic it is that they will change how prone they are to terrible behavior. That's why, so many times, I wrote that it's essential to punish and good practice to never trust them.
But I do take the step to insist it isn't because they are technically irredeemable but because a person whose story and behaviors are that far gone is highly unlikely to stop behaving horrifyingly.
and that being we're stuck in this 'experiment' which is reality- and though a vantage above or outside of reality may support not only 'good people/bad people' but also the absence of 'good/bad' altogether, as much of it is emotionally driven anyway. 

i'm guessing there have been paths i crossed with people dead set on doing things that make no sense whatsoever and offer even them no advantage- and lends a measure of proof that 'some folks just want to see the world burn'.  

Online Anonymous Coward

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #131 on: November 09, 2018, 10:15:43 AM »
We're all good Drew. And I also think there are people in this world who only want to watch it burn. But I think that's compatible with my philosophy too. Those people have complicated stories to explain why they became the way they are. And the wanting of the burning and the doing of the burning don't necessarily have to be who they are, but *how* they are.

Online bwarbiany

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #132 on: November 09, 2018, 01:35:32 PM »
Sir, respectfully, this is far from correct.  there are people who are just plain bad.  relative to standards of the culture, "contract with society" and all that jazz even accounted for- there are people who just want to see and do bad things.  i will strike a comment as such up as 'lack of exposure' as opposed to willingness of applying relativism of morals.
i had a long response posted that offered some of the things i've seen in my travels first hand, but they are personal and should stay that way.  there is evil, and there is good i am certain.  they may coexist (and do) in the same person (most people) with a ever fluctuating dynamic, but... there are some that are lost in whole and seemingly driven by the desire to be bad.
Drew, I know that given your own history as a soldier, you've seen a lot of things that whether you label it subjectively or objectively evil, are horrors that should never had occurred.
I think what AC might be saying is that a lot of those horrors were again a product of their environment. That some of the people you fought against, had they been born and raised in the USA, might have turned into model citizens and perhaps soldiers such as yourself. And that he's saying that some of your comrades in arms--guys you trusted with your life--had they been born into the environment in which you fought, would have become those evil people.
Essentially I think AC's point is that people are very much inherently malleable, and not inherently good or evil. It's a point with which I have qualified agreement; some people would turn out good in good situations, and evil in evil situations. They are absolutely a product of the environment. 
I think your point is that some people are just bad. And it's a point with which I also have qualified agreement. There are people who are the product of loving households in affluent and tolerant communities, but something in them is so askew that they become sociopaths, or sadists, or elsewhere. Nothing in their external environment made them this way. Now, it might be their brain chemistry and not that they're just born immoral, but I can see your point in calling them inherently evil because it was their own internal problem. 
So I think it's a mix of nature and nurture. Whether the "nature" is a chance mix of biochemistry or a inherent moral depravity doesn't matter for the purpose of how to deal with those people; they should be confined in such a way that their nature cannot cause the rest of us harm.

Offline SFBadger96

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #133 on: November 09, 2018, 01:57:29 PM »
CD--good video. 

Online Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 2504
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #134 on: November 09, 2018, 02:13:33 PM »
The wife and I were walking in the park a few weeks back, not too many people around, nice day but midweek.  Some dude walking towards us is yelling stuff, looking at me, walking my way, yelling something about "F the US" and whatever, with an African accent.  I got between him and the wife looking for a tree limb or something if needed, he was a scrawny dude but young, yelling quite loudly.  We were able to move 10 or so feet from where he passed, and he just passed us.  That's the only time since we moved that I had a bit of a fright.

He walked on yelling obscenities at the air.  I guess he is "well known" in the area, have not seen him since, and I go to the park almost daily.

The encounter was seconds long but it gets one to thinking about crazies.  I was not carrying, I abhor the idea of needing to shoot another human, but had I been I would have had hand on implement.

The park seems very safe, we see a lot of younger females running rather scantily clad, and often alone, and mothers with strollers etc very often.  But it only takes one of course.  

I saw a policeman yesterday on the street on one of those two wheelers going by.  I thought that was a good device for them.  I forget their name now.

Online Drew4UTk

  • Administrator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2342
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #135 on: November 09, 2018, 02:15:15 PM »
... @bwarbiany and @Anonymous Coward , I get this.  People are products of environment.  however, after my child was introduced in the world and after observing her everyday for the past five years- i am wiling to bet the farm 'instinct' plays an equal role.  I used to think to myself "what in the hell am i going to do when little boys come to call" and that changed as her personality developed and now it's "those poor effers, i wonder if i should warn them?"....

on a serious note, though:

i still can't swallow it.  some people are bad.  think: wiring. chemicals.  predisposition.  

insofar as being a Marine or attache to groups doing defense stuff- people gonna do bad things in combat.  what people are capable of, it's always surprised me, is that is surprises them.  i wager people have no clue what they are capable of until they're forced to decide. this totally wiped my concept of black/white/wrong/right... "you just don't know until...you do..."  i think this incredibly terrifying realization contributes to the majority of combat induced PTSD.  it has less to to with what happened than it does the person's actions or conceptualization as a result.  

but this isn't what leads my belief into some people just plain being bad.... what does is 'what people do when they know they can get by with it no matter what that is' which is to say you can observe their true character.  the lack of what most people consider integrity or character in people you'd think have it in spades is what i speak of... conditional? "contract with society"? this falls inline with @Anonymous Coward 's position and is valid... the Stanford Prison Experiment? It would seem to also fall inline- and it does... however my contention is that this creature lives in all of us and is capable of escaping, while in others it is encouraged into 'escaping'- if for no other reason than to 'see if they can get by with it'... and these people are bad.  chemicals? brain injury? wiring? don't know.... just that some people are pre-disposed to do wrong knowing it's wrong and against their 'contract with society'.      

Online FearlessF

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4779
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #136 on: November 09, 2018, 02:32:58 PM »


i still can't swallow it.  some people are bad.  think: wiring. chemicals.  predisposition.  
unfortunately, I wholeheartedly agree
some humans are evil

regardless of their experiences and/or environment
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Offline bayareabadger

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 769
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #137 on: November 09, 2018, 03:13:42 PM »
I wish I could just assume things getting more visible...
But I actually think that social media is making this worse, because people are sharing things to their entire online universe that they would only share in close company before. And they're often doing it not in long-form debate, but in catchy memes that completely remove all nuance of a topic--so people increasingly think nuance doesn't exist.
As if we weren't already in a sound-bite, tl;dr culture, social media and memes have made it worse.
I don’t know if it’s quite that as much as, we’re in a mode where we seek out what we agree with, but also what we don’t do we can be caustic about it. But now, instead of hate reading the local columnist three times a week, we can seek out ALL of it, on our own, and then fire back by calling for his or her job. 
I think we’ve always been bad with nuance, we just have more chance to show it. (Plus I’ll agree there’s a certain death of expertise). 
(I meant to respond to a past post about journalists needing to become more expert in technical fields. I kind of saw it the other way. It’s more important for people in technical fields to become better communicators, as the barriers for who has a platform get lower and lower)

Online Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 2504
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #138 on: November 09, 2018, 04:00:26 PM »
Are sociopaths inherently evil?

Online Drew4UTk

  • Administrator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2342
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #139 on: November 09, 2018, 04:19:56 PM »
Are sociopaths inherently evil?
Some are profoundly important to society... They got there and will remain there by having laser sharp focus void of distractions most folks have due to conscious or moral code. Not all of them are social failures. Its actually in their better interest to obey the rules yet navigate them in a way advantagious to them (and of your interests are aligned, you too).  Its said as many as one in 20 are full blown sociopaths, and its also said they are valuable to big companies in management positions as the symbiotic relationship flourishes.  
Strange world, no?  
Now psychopaths... That may be different.. I'm not sure a put that either though, to be honest, nor if they're "bad" either .... Sympathy for the devil and all that.  

Online OrangeAfroMan

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2476
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #140 on: November 09, 2018, 06:56:16 PM »
The nature/nurture debate is over - it's 50/50.  Well not exactly that, but it's a bell curve (like everything else).  We're all victims of circumstance - individual experiences, genetic predispositions, ongoing or chronic experiences, etc.  Some we overcome, some are an ongoing struggle, and many we don't even identify - some, ever.  




I've had students (young children) who I'd trust to do my taxes and I've had others that should be locked in a cage.  Many want to do the right thing but physically aren't in control of their own bodies.  Garbage parenting is a major culprit.  But there are other guilty parties in nearly every aspect of humanity.  A high IQ is good, but not too high, because then it becomes a detriment.  Having 2 parents is good, unless it's a poisonous union and daily fallout from the clashes.  There's "yeah, but"s weaved throughout all of it.  



For those who turn out leaning on the "good" side, we're far more fortunate than responsible for turning out that way.
Gators chomp Nazis

Offline Reyd

  • Walk On
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #141 on: November 09, 2018, 07:21:58 PM »
Psychopaths are the writers of their universe which makes you and me bit players on their tapestry and as such we have no say about the psychopath's  script. Sociopaths know they are not the only writers but they don't care about the other writers unless it is to their advantage. Most leaders have a little sociopath in them. 

Good and evil are human constructs and as such I consider them descriptors. Depending on your position in the universe the more black and white these descriptors  can become. Salespersons end up with lots of grays whiles soldiers try to see as much black and white as possible.

Online bwarbiany

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #142 on: November 09, 2018, 07:33:53 PM »
A high IQ is good, but not too high, because then it becomes a detriment.  
How so? 

Online Anonymous Coward

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #143 on: November 09, 2018, 10:16:20 PM »
Are sociopaths inherently evil?
I don't believe anyone is inherently evil, but anyone who violates social norms as often as necessary to serve themselves is a person whose behaviors can be terribly problematic.

Online OrangeAfroMan

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2476
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #144 on: November 09, 2018, 10:21:41 PM »
How so?
People with extremely high IQs are far more likely to suffer from mood and anxiety disorders.  I don't know if it's a mind thing or not, but it's easy to see how this could be the case just by environmental factors.
The world is made for people of average intelligence, by and large.  Or the average range (95-105) or so.  
If you think of your life in our society as a game, it's best to be somewhat smarter than most.  That way, you can excel at it.  But if a game is too easy for you, it gets boring.  If the game is full of (perceived) glitches and errors, you become frustrated.  
I first realized this when reading the bios of many of the great philosophers - many of them had mental breakdowns.  Many mass killers have 150+ IQs.  But of course those are anecdotal.  But if you do a little research, it's confirmed.  An IQ between 120-140 is great (safer,healthy).  An IQ up around 160 - you're as likely to hate life as to enjoy it.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 10:24:35 PM by OrangeAfroMan »
Gators chomp Nazis

Online Anonymous Coward

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #145 on: November 09, 2018, 10:38:32 PM »
It’s more important for people in technical fields to become better communicators, as the barriers for who has a platform get lower and lower
Highly underrated comment.
At the present and upcoming critical junctures (be them conversations related to Alzheimer's, stem cells, GMOs, climate change, evolution, vaccines, consciousness, cancer), where scientific literacy is as rare as it is critical to our way forward, Earth needs ... well, a hundred thousand Carl Sagans wouldn't be too many to lead the way.
Niel De Grasse Tyson is "neat" enough to lend my ear from time to time, but he doesn't reliably supply a tenth of what I'm talking about. The need isn't just for inspiration without dumbing down. Or the ability to connect and blossom minds to massive ideas. We also need something much harder: for all of that to come packaged with the skill to relate, be likable, friendly. Worthy of the audience. Never above the audience.
There aren't many like that who are rockstar leaders of their field. In fact, after puzzling for a half-minute, I can think of zero whose voice is also mainstream. So we have to go deeper until we end up with a list of countless nameless, uncelebrated types. For every thousand high school, university, or unassociated-with-school teachers, there's one or forty who do their work this kind of well.
As mankind's most precious resources go, they share the top of my list.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 10:44:12 PM by Anonymous Coward »

Online Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 2504
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #146 on: November 10, 2018, 08:05:36 AM »
I had a friend, of sorts, between about 7th and 10th grade.  He was clearly smarter than any of the rest of us.  He ended up being State Star Student and made 1600 on the SAT back when that was a perfect score.  I hear from another friend he went to GaTech and dropped out and ended up managing an apartment building in ATL somewhere.  I don't know if that is true, just what a friend of both of us told me.

He did have problems "socializing" (not that I didn't have my share, in common with many teen boys of course).

As to being able to communicate complex scientific concepts, it simply is not easy at all.  Feynman was quite good at it with his books and lectures, but the shoe is also on the other foot, how many lay people read anything Feinman wrote or watch his lectures?

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-1-law-of-gravitation

How many have even heard of Feynman?




Online Anonymous Coward

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Liked:
Re: OT: Online Civility
« Reply #147 on: November 10, 2018, 12:19:57 PM »
The "lay people" who know and read Feynman aren't pure lay people. They are scientists and professionals outside of physics.

 

Support the Site:
Please Search Amazon from here! No cost to you yet covers some of our expenses!