Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherCat
I suggest that you calm down before you have an apoplexy.
You said to the other poster:
I was about to give my worthless anecdote before I came upon your posts (I had no idea of this science). - bolding added by me.
I was pointing out that what you referred to as being science was not science at all, but rather just someone's mangling of "science"; and I gave a brief introductory explanation why that was so.
Perhaps someone debunking the "science" did not meet your agenda, and hence your anger. Good luck, I'll leave you to it.
|
Still with the agenda ("did not meet your agenda"), even after my denials ("weird," 40 years of close backlighting work and no glasses [isn't it clear that I would lean towards thinking that LCDs rarely if ever deteriorate vision except possibly to a very tiny degree, or to a very special population, given my personal experience?]).
Your red herring is that you addressed my objections by saying you "were pointing out ...." But that came packaged in a needlessly insulting and presumptuous post ascribing to me an agenda and implying that I'm not among "those of more rational thought." It's a red herring because those insults are what I addressed; I addressed nothing about your statements about the science, and have no inclination or knowledge to doubt those statements.
Your cheap rhetorical trick is to deflect criticism of your bad behavior by ascribing something like hysteria to me ("calm down" "apoplexy" "anger").
Here it is clearly:
1. I have no agenda. You've ascribed this possibility to me even after my explanations to the contrary.
2. I don't know eye science, and was just asking an innocent question. I am happy to learn more with the hints you gave, though I'm developing a distaste for this subject.
3. Please stop trolling me with your condescending and unpleasant imputations and insults. That shouldn't be too much to ask.