System Dynamics

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.12.09.1400]

Martin,

I really don't think he is ever going to turn a new leaf. In fact, given his well-documented pattern of being nicey-picey and then turning abusive all the way to virulent, no amount of reasoned discussion with Marc Abrams is going to do any good.

I think he is the distractor, the dissembler, and the boor in these interchanges. Funny that he has used that language to describe each and every one of us? When one suffers through one of his tirades time and again the message becomes clear. At first, I took it that I had done something wrong. No. But then I reflected, and found that the reply from Marc Abrams was like a reflection from a carneval mirror, distorted, twisted, and virtually unusable. So now, ya know, "sticks and stones..." Instead, it must be understood to everyone that it is naive to think that Marc Abrams is, or could ever be, a positive contributor to a forum where scientific topics are discussed.

--B.

Martin Taylor wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2005.12.08.14.05]

....

···

Sorry, folks. I realize that I violated my own rule by replaying to a posting by Marc, but he had been quite reasonable up to that point, and I had mistakenly perceived that he had turned over a new leaf and was willing to contribute to the scientific discussion. I've double violated it by sending this message, but I'll try to stick to my rule in future.

Martin

From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.08.1617)]

In a message dated 12/8/2005 2:41:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:

···

[Martin Taylor 2005.12.08.14.05]

from [Marc Abrams (2005.12.08.1320)]
In a message dated 12/8/2005 11:34:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:
  >[Martin Taylor 2005.12.08.11.11]
  Dynamical systems are indeed a field of study and most people know that field as the study of 'chaos'.

You couldn’t be more wrong! Sorry,

Ok, I’m ‘wrong’. Except I am not wrong. Like my diagram my understanding of system dynamics is different then yours.

But as you can see folks, this response validates my notion the Martin is more concerned with advocating his position, ‘winning’ and being ‘right’ then he is at getting at the ‘truth’ and having meaningful dialogue.

So, to make you feel better I will say that Martin is absolutely correct when talking about what Martin wants to talk about, but is absolutely wrong in responding to me and what my ideas were.

Precise enough MT?