>>10955494>In math and physics you need to put in some groundwork before you can have useful discussion, and some questions indicate right away that you haven't done thatWe've been hearing for eons that for any progression, we're more likely/expectant to have it come from some outsider.
Look at Brian Greene whenever he hosts a for the public panel. He outright belittles most guests just on the FYI portion.
And I don't blame him. He asks for a definition of some concept to get the ball rolling and sure enough. Rote.
Not even as a off the cuff response, but they steady themselves and take a moment to be sure it's what was said in the book.
People noted in their field, too cautious to stray off script! Any wonder Brian subtly accosts them "Good.. Good".
Fuck thanking these organic task schedulers.
What good is a live discussion where all that takes place is citation[spoiler:lit]plagiarism[/spoiler]?
>>10955548>Also of course it's annoying if people don't put in any work and ask as first impulse instead of consulting a text or try it out. But kneejerk reactions go well beyond that'He say's as he suckles the authoritative tit.'
You just spieled about mental cuckboxing.
Given few others use the char limit, I'll assume you're also Tippy Mc'tipperson.
You've reverenced Hermes for fuck's sake!
Then go on to reject 95% of alternative interpretations because.
"I hate reiteration, and fear that the ill read will see what these blinkers made from hardcovers and wasted memorization shield us from."
Get the fuck out of your exclusive discussion of literal scripture. Start engaging with bunk, fail and aids.
You're not going to think differently if everyone is on the same page.
...
Or, you've put the smiley in the wrong place.
But the onus is still really on you with that one :^)
