Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Oldhoopster, post: 2907595, member: 84179&quot;]There is a huge difference between questioning the status quo and insisting that a basic tenet is incorrect.</p><p><br /></p><p>You proposed a new way to define burrs based on what you’ve observed and offered that information to the community. While there’s nothing wrong with challenging a well-established principal, you should expect to be challenged and be ready to provide the data, facts, details, and logic to prove your thesis. Pushback comes with the territory and many times you have to provide extraordinary proof and even then, it may not always be accepted.</p><p><br /></p><p>Many rebutted your proposal, including people with outstanding credentials in the field. Overall, many felt your thesis was without merit based on the existing body of knowledge and feedback from highly credible experts. Some of the rebuttals were made in a demeaning and unprofessional manner – there is no excuse for that – unfortunately, it happens frequently when challenging an established idea, both in uncontrolled formats like CT and professional venues such as conferences and peer reviewed publications.</p><p><br /></p><p>The main problem is the way you responded to the criticism of your proposal. Remember, when you are trying to change an established idea, you need to provide extraordinary proof. This is true for physics, medicine, or numismatics. Long winded diatribes about being taught to question authority, free country, blah, blah, blah just dug a deeper hole. You offered nothing more than “I think you all are wrong because I was taught to question things”.&nbsp; If you still feel your idea has merit, then you need to continue to present a logical, rational explanation with as much supporting data as possible.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in