It was true 10 years ago that 1% of engineers were women. My son says
graduating women now occupy about 10 percentile. As you know engineers
are
either of the practical sort, applied engineering, or of the theoretical
sort. These theorists like to worry about the physics and mathematics of
the
universe, and why there are insufficient quarks compared with theory,
etc.

In academic circles known to me, cosmologists are not regarded as
'engineers'.

Dear Nick,

Have we become unduly contentious?

Perhaps if you are unclear to any 'point' I have made, its because I am not
insisting on any particular one? I merely observe in the above paragraph
that some enginnering students are decidedly theoretical, and are interested
in the physics of quarks, [and additionally in the mathematics of the
Special Theory, eg,]. I don't think I equated either quarks or
enginnineering strictly with comologists, and did not mention that word.

He says that the split of engineering students is about 65% practical,
to
35% theorists.

Phil, on the note of "I said 'apples'; you say 'oranges'", I wrote of
'top professional mathematicians', and you write of 'engineering
students'.

Please go ahead and say your further opinions from your perspectives. I hope
it is okay wiuth you if I also mention mine? If they are not the same they
are not necessarily in conflict or antithetical, no?

I perhaps should have emphasised that the discussion had nothing so much
to do with women's ability to undertake tasks, as to male attitudes
about
their place in society. Historically I think we must acknowledge this
*sociological* factor

Phil, you should address your point to Tim Hanke, who created this thread.

Well Nick, I should have and did make a direct reply to Tim Hanke.

Thus far there have been 4 replies to my post without a contribution by Tim;
by J. Fernandez, E. Johnson, yourself and N. Brennan, each dilating it to
an area of their choice, and sometimes wit.

To re-establish the main point: it takes time in the professions to equalise
sociological factors. No analogy is exact, however no analogy drawn from the
professions is inert from comparison either.

- it is only 100 years [4 generations] since women could contract
for property in the US, no?

Thanks to Neil Brennen for his historical note.

Historically, if we eliminate V. Menchik in the 1930s as a
'statistical
widow' the succession of women to IM and GM titles is only, what, 30
years old? On the face of it unless there is an indepenent track for
women's play there will not be enough of them currently in the game
to
encourage each other, and their ratings will peak and stall. Just a
few
years ago I remember in chess.misc no one thought that Judit Polgar
could
play against first tier male opponents. In fact the same arguments
were
applied, insufficient agression and so on ~ and these views were
even
espoused by a psychologist!

Presumably by a male psychologist. :-)

Yes. But I would like to note that the basis of the person's objections
were not sociological, as above, but psychological.

I have *not* read anything in that specific discussion (cited by Phil
Innes).

So? I am establishing the possible field of enquiry, and suggest two poles
of common appreciation. I suggest that they both contribute to the situation
of 'women in chess'.

As I recall, Bob Musicant, who has a Ph.D. in psychology, has written in
the
RGCM thread, "Why women are less efficient at chess than men?" (October
2003),
that the question, in effect, of "Why are women weaker than men at chess?
Is it biology or culture?", could be answered by just a biological
explanation,
"different brain structure/function" (which is *not* to say that I am
certain
that he would exclude all other potential explanations).

Okay. That is, I understand what Bob has asserted. Less clear is 'brain
structure'. If that subject is appreciable, is structure a result of
function? How does function relate to culture? These are, if not opposite
factors, surely zyzygous (sysygous in US spelling). One cannot exist without
implying the other. Perhaps Bob M will say more?

Its amusing that someone wrote me recently that the gap between men and
women in the US is being closed, not because women are acquiring more
male behavioral characteristics, but because males have eaten too much
female-growth hormone in their hamburgers :-)

Perhaps someone will invoke the 'mad cow disease' rationalisation for
one's
blunders in chess. :-)

Well, we have exhuasted all the usual excuses.

For whatever it's worth, when there were very few GMs from China and
India,
I predicted that someday, after more Chinese and Indians had become
interested
in chess and able to compete often enough in strong international events,
there
should be many GMs from China and India.

I believe you reflect the same opinion as does GM Karpov. If chess playing
at a high level is a function of the critical mass of all chess-players in a
society, then we had better watch out!

My prediction was then ridiculed by
some Europeans on apparently racist grounds, though usually expressed in
their
euphemistic terms. I even heard someone ignorantly claim that China and
India
have no historical traditions of playing chess or games similar to chess!
:-)

Ha! Yes, that is an absurd assertion. Dr. Li who sometimes wrote here a few
years ago (chess.misc) wrote a book tracing a pre-Indian C5th chess playing
culture to China. Contentious was if this game resembled western chess
sufficiently to call it the same name ~ or if it was a strategic and
tactical board game of independent Chinese origin.

It is interesting that the 'high culture' of the first century BCE borrowed
much from the then extant culture in North Vietnam, which seemed in many
ways superior.

Rationally [as Tim Hanke likes to say] from any statistical basis
drawn
from current probablity, this projection is a truism; however
Polgar's
demonstration was the first to deflate all question of sufficient
ability. To draw a parallel between the US civil war participation
in
medicine and chess-entry for women, it's obviously a matter of a
critical
mass of women playing the game, and simply by force of numbers,
unless
there can be a seperate track for women, a sufficient volume of
woman
players to achieve any critical mass cannot come about in a
relatively
short time period.

Yes, that's a utilitarian argument for some separate women's chess
events.

It constitutes a proof.

Phil, I have to say that it's unclear to me exactly what you regard as
having
proven. I concur that Judit Polgar has proven that a woman can play chess
nearly as well as the best men players in the world.

Didn't I write that it demonstrated that a woman could play in the first
tier? We seem to be in agreement on that. I'm not sure I asserted anything
more than that, or why any 'exactness' is required.

But your other comments
about 'a parallel between the US civil war participation in medicine and
chess-entry for women' seem to be nothing more yet than a plausible
argument.

To the degree that _any_ analogy is a 'parallel', you are correct.

And people like to say that it is an exception which proves the rule.

I hope that a sensible person should only say that with intended irony.
:-)

Why would you hope so? It is actually a logical precept, isn't it? An
exception does in fact disprove the rule!

An oxymoron! Actually exceptions disprove the rule!

What do you think? Is there any doubt that in 100 years will
55% of Grandmasters will be women?

I have to say there is at least some doubt that 'in 100 years 55% of
Grandmasters will be women'.

I know its a seeming crazy question. But I really wanted to observe
/how/
you answered, rather than what you answered. [chasing my idea from
above,
of sociological or psychological responses, as types]

I should be quite reluctant to predict what chess or human societies
could be like one century (not in cricket!) from now. To what extent
could chess have become 'analysed to death' by computers?

To what extent is this appreciable by humans? After all there are 100s
of
chess books out there full of lines that few understand or have even
read,
nevermind remember.

If chess will have become substantially, or perhaps even completely,
'solved'
at some future time, then how much interest will men or women continue to
have
in playing it?

Solved? By whom, and how so? Chess is not a theoretical activity! It is a
performance conducted within a time restraint.

I think these are very interesting questions, and the temptation is to
resort to analogy once more to explicate them

As if, you know, Shakespeare could be 'solved' (a nonsense statement?)
Or the Special Theory - if indeed Einstein or Hu has got it right, will that
resolution contribute more or less interest in the subject?

What could be the common or 'normal' relationships between men and
women?
And might the human race have become extinct before that time?

See, you reply sociologically

I tend to reply by being restrained in my 'future historical' conjectures.
:-)

Fair enough. I simply make a distinction based on which /type/ of conjecture
you choose to restrain: between Sociological or Psychological, in this case.
I think while conjectural restraint of any undisciplined sort is a valuable
atttribute, the Idea of conjecture, and indeed of Imagination, is by no
means discreditable, and one might call its lower manifestation science
fiction, and its higher discipline futures-anthropology.

I'm sorry if you felt that I was reducing your comments by writing my own. I
apprecaite what you have written as a completely valid perspective, no more
nor less than my own.

I do recognise however, just to speak of my own ideas, that they are not the
ONLY ideas that seem to play a part in this discussion of women's chess.

Cordially, Phil Innes



--Nick

"Phil Innes" wrote ...
Well Nick, I should have and did make a direct reply to Tim Hanke.

Thus far there have been 4 replies to my post without a contribution by
Tim;
by J. Fernandez, E. Johnson, yourself and N. Brennan, each dilating it to
an area of their choice, and sometimes wit.

Phil,

Sometimes I have trouble understanding your points.

Tim Hanke

"Phil Innes" wrote in message
...

In academic circles known to me, cosmologists are not regarded as
'engineers'.

Dear Nick,

Have we become unduly contentious?

No, he's always been intellectually dishonest.

StanB

"Phil Innes" wrote in message ...
Phil Innes wrote:
It was true 10 years ago that 1% of engineers were women. My son says
graduating women now occupy about 10 percentile. As you know engineers
are either of the practical sort, applied engineering, or of the
theoretical sort. These theorists like to worry about the physics and
mathematics of the universe, and why there are insufficient quarks
compared with theory, etc.

Nick wrote:
In academic circles known to me, cosmologists are not regarded as
'engineers'.

Dear Nick, Have we become unduly contentious?

Dear Phil,

It seems to me that there's nothing worse between us now than a series
of misunderstandings on some points of discussion in this thread.

Perhaps if you are unclear to any 'point' I have made, its because I am not
insisting on any particular one? I merely observe in the above paragraph
that some enginnering students are decidedly theoretical, and are interested
in the physics of quarks, [and additionally in the mathematics of the
Special Theory, eg,]. I don't think I equated either quarks or
enginnineering strictly with comologists, and did not mention that word.

You described '*these* theorists (who) like to worry about the physics and
mathematics of the universe', who *are* cosmologists, in the *same continuing
context* of discussing engineers. It seemed to me that you (or other readers)
might *not* have understood that cosmologists (or 'these theorists (who) like
to worry about the physics and mathematics of the universe') are *not*
considered 'engineers' (as you had evidently mischaracterised them).

Hypothesising about the origins of the universe is *not* regarded as
attempting to solve an *engineering* problem.

He says that the split of engineering students is about 65% practical,
to 35% theorists.

Phil, on the note of "I said 'apples'; you say 'oranges'", I wrote
of 'top professional mathematicians', and you write of 'engineering
students'.

Please go ahead and say your further opinions from your perspectives.
I hope it is okay wiuth you if I also mention mine? If they are not the
same they are not necessarily in conflict or antithetical, no?

Phil, it's fine with me for you to *introduce* your own points.
I was just observing that when I write about 'top professional mathematicians',
then it's not the most relevant response (if that's what it was supposed to be)
for you to write about 'engineering students' in addressing my point.

I perhaps should have emphasised that the discussion had nothing so much
to do with women's ability to undertake tasks, as to male attitudes
about their place in society. Historically I think we must acknowledge
this *sociological* factor

Phil, you should address your point to Tim Hanke, who created this thread.

Well Nick, I should have and did make a direct reply to Tim Hanke....

Phil, what I meant was that Tim Hanke seems less convinced than I am of the
significance of your attributed 'sociological factor'.

To re-establish the main point: it takes time in the professions to equalise
sociological factors. No analogy is exact, however no analogy drawn from the
professions is inert from comparison either....

I can agree that usually 'no analogy is exact', yet some analogies seem
better than others.

Historically, if we eliminate V. Menchik in the 1930s as a
'statistical widow' the succession of women to IM and GM titles is
only, what, 30 years old? On the face of it unless there is an
indepenent track for women's play there will not be enough of them
currently in the game to encourage each other, and their ratings
will peak and stall. Just a few years ago I remember in chess.misc
no one thought that Judit Polgar could play against first tier male
opponents. In fact the same arguments were applied, insufficient
agression and so on ~ and these views were even espoused by a
psychologist!

Presumably by a male psychologist. :-)

Yes. But I would like to note that the basis of the person's objections
were not sociological, as above, but psychological.

I have *not* read anything in that specific discussion
(cited by Phil Innes).

So?

I mentioned that fact (above) just in case another writer here should assume
mistakenly that I am familiar with the specific discussion cited by Phil Innes
and then mention points from that discussion, which would be unknown to me.

I am establishing the possible field of enquiry, and suggest two poles of
common appreciation. I suggest that they both contribute to the situation
of 'women in chess'.

Phil, I have no objection to what you wrote there. I would suggest, however,
that you should not assume, if you did, that every reader here (including me)
ought to be already familiar enough with a thread from 'just a few years ago',
particularly when you have *not* identified that thread or the psychologist
who expressed those arguments that you have described.

As I recall, Bob Musicant, who has a Ph.D. in psychology, has written in
the RGCM thread, "Why women are less efficient at chess than men?"
(October 2003),

In contrast, I have identified the thread and the psychologist that I cite.

that the question, in effect, of "Why are women weaker than men at chess?
Is it biology or culture?", could be answered by just a biological
explanation, "different brain structure/function" (which is *not* to say
that I am certain that he would exclude all other potential explanations).

Okay. That is, I understand what Bob has asserted. Less clear is 'brain
structure'. If that subject is appreciable, is structure a result of
function? How does function relate to culture? These are, if not opposite
factors, surely zyzygous (sysygous in US spelling). One cannot exist without
implying the other. Perhaps Bob M will say more?

That's up to Bob Musicant. One may read more of his comments in the RGCM
thread, "Why women are less efficient at chess than men?" (October 2003).

For whatever it's worth, when there were very few GMs from China and
India I predicted that someday, after more Chinese and Indians had
become interested in chess and able to compete often enough in strong
international events, there should be many GMs from China and India.

I believe you reflect the same opinion as does GM Karpov. If chess playing
at a high level is a function of the critical mass of all chess-players in
a society, then we had better watch out!

I do *not* believe that it should be bad for chess if there were 'many GMs
from China and India' (which is *not* to say that Phil Innes believes that).

My prediction was then ridiculed by some Europeans on apparently racist
grounds, though usually expressed in their euphemistic terms. I even heard
someone ignorantly claim that China and India have no historical traditions
of playing chess or games similar to chess! :-)

Ha! Yes, that is an absurd assertion. Dr. Li who sometimes wrote here a few
years ago (chess.misc) wrote a book tracing a pre-Indian C5th chess playing
culture to China. Contentious was if this game resembled western chess
sufficiently to call it the same name ~ or if it was a strategic and
tactical board game of independent Chinese origin....

As I recall, Joseph Needham (the late eminent historian of Chinese science
and technology at the University of Cambridge) regarded it as 'proto-chess',
yet comparable enough to be considered the ancestor of 'Western chess'.

Rationally [as Tim Hanke likes to say] from any statistical basis
drawn from current probablity, this projection is a truism; however
Polgar's demonstration was the first to deflate all question of
sufficient ability. To draw a parallel between the US civil war
participation in medicine and chess-entry for women, it's obviously
a matter of a critical mass of women playing the game, and simply by
force of numbers, unless there can be a seperate track for women, a
sufficient volume of woman players to achieve any critical mass
cannot come about in a relatively short time period.

Yes, that's a utilitarian argument for some separate women's chess
events.

It constitutes a proof.

Phil, I have to say that it's unclear to me exactly what you regard as
having proven. I concur that Judit Polgar has proven that a woman can
play chess nearly as well as the best men players in the world.

Didn't I write that it demonstrated that a woman could play in the first
tier? We seem to be in agreement on that. I'm not sure I asserted anything
more than that, or why any 'exactness' is required.

Phil, you wrote, 'It constitutes a proof', immediately *after* a paragraph
in which you made *other assertions* besides than the one about Judit Polgar.
You did *not* specify exactly what 'it' refers to in your statement,
'It constitutes a proof'. Please attempt to write more clearly.

But your other comments about 'a parallel between the US civil war
participation in medicine and chess-entry for women' seem to be nothing
more yet than a plausible argument.

To the degree that _any_ analogy is a 'parallel', you are correct.

Phil, then evidently you do *not* believe 'it constitutes a proof' here.

And people like to say that it is an exception which proves the rule.

I hope that a sensible person should only say that with intended irony. :-)

Why would you hope so? It is actually a logical precept, isn't it?
An exception does in fact disprove the rule!

Yes, Phil, I know that one exception disproves a *universal* rule.
Please note what I mentioned about 'irony' (and the smiley).

An oxymoron! Actually exceptions disprove the rule!
(snipped)
If chess will have become substantially, or perhaps even completely,
'solved' at some future time, then how much interest will men or women
continue to have in playing it?

Solved? By whom, and how so? Chess is not a theoretical activity!
It is a performance conducted within a time restraint.

Phil, there already are many long threads about 'solving chess' in RGCM.

(snipped)
I'm sorry if you felt that I was reducing your comments by writing my own.

Phil, I did not feel that way.

I apprecaite what you have written as a completely valid perspective,
no more nor less than my own. I do recognise however, just to speak of my
own ideas, that they are not the ONLY ideas that seem to play a part in
this discussion of women's chess.

--Nick

Dear Nick, Have we become unduly contentious?

Dear Phil,

It seems to me that there's nothing worse between us now than a series
of misunderstandings on some points of discussion in this thread.

Well, okay Nick. Lets try and mend any communications fences here. I have
snipped many aspects of the great debate, since I think you are right in
your comment, and besides, I would prefer to return to the topic, which is
women in chess.

You described '*these* theorists (who) like to worry about the physics
and
mathematics of the universe', who *are* cosmologists, in the *same
continuing
context* of discussing engineers. It seemed to me that you (or other
readers)
might *not* have understood that cosmologists (or 'these theorists (who)
like
to worry about the physics and mathematics of the universe') are *not*
considered 'engineers' (as you had evidently mischaracterised them).

Hypothesising about the origins of the universe is *not* regarded as
attempting to solve an *engineering* problem.

I think I intended that 'theoretical' physics was the work of some
engineers, rather than that engineers were the fons et origo of
hypothesies.
~~~~~~~

Well Nick, I should have and did make a direct reply to Tim Hanke....

Phil, what I meant was that Tim Hanke seems less convinced than I am of
the
significance of your attributed 'sociological factor'.

I know Tim reasonably well, and inter alia of anything he might volunteer, I
also know that he has a psychological appreciation of chess playing. I think
that he has somewhat under represented his own understanding of the
sociological side of things. I am sure that he will make his own response in
good time, sometimes the fastest responses are the least interesting, and
this debate is a 100 year old cultural one.


~~~~~~~~

Presumably by a male psychologist. :-)

Yes. But I would like to note that the basis of the person's
objections
were not sociological, as above, but psychological.

I have *not* read anything in that specific discussion
(cited by Phil Innes).

So?

I mentioned that fact (above) just in case another writer here should
assume
mistakenly that I am familiar with the specific discussion cited by Phil
Innes
and then mention points from that discussion, which would be unknown to
me.

I am establishing the possible field of enquiry, and suggest two poles
of
common appreciation. I suggest that they both contribute to the
situation
of 'women in chess'.

Phil, I have no objection to what you wrote there. I would suggest,
however,
that you should not assume, if you did, that every reader here (including
me)
ought to be already familiar enough with a thread from 'just a few years
ago',
particularly when you have *not* identified that thread or the
psychologist
who expressed those arguments that you have described.

Okay. I understand your point, and say two things (a) if the person wants to
identify themselves and join the conversation I have created a context for
doing so, and (b) I am less interested in the opinions of people without any
psychological nous or experience addressing the subject. I think there is
perhaps a minimum level of understanding of a subject necessary for some
conversations to take place.

As I recall, Bob Musicant, who has a Ph.D. in psychology, has written
in
the RGCM thread, "Why women are less efficient at chess than men?"
(October 2003),

In contrast, I have identified the thread and the psychologist that I
cite.

Sorry, I am unsure of the intent of your statement.

It would be interesting to talk with Bob if he cares to join the thread. I
think that I am insufficiently qualified to talk of any clinical aspects of
pyschology, but could understand and engage on non-clinical aspects of it.

For my own purposes I would like to contrast such pyschological
observations with cultural or sociological ones to better inform myself of
the inner/outer aspects of women in chess.

~~~~~~~~~
Okay. That is, I understand what Bob has asserted. Less clear is
'brain
structure'. If that subject is appreciable, is structure a result of
function? How does function relate to culture? These are, if not
opposite
factors, surely zyzygous (sysygous in US spelling). One cannot exist
without
implying the other. Perhaps Bob M will say more?

That's up to Bob Musicant. One may read more of his comments in the RGCM
thread, "Why women are less efficient at chess than men?" (October 2003).

I suppose I would like to take advantage of an interaction with Bob to
clarify some issues that I have not properly understood from his writing, or
which apparently go unaddressed.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Ha! Yes, that is an absurd assertion. Dr. Li who sometimes wrote here a
few
years ago (chess.misc) wrote a book tracing a pre-Indian C5th chess
playing
culture to China. Contentious was if this game resembled western chess
sufficiently to call it the same name ~ or if it was a strategic and
tactical board game of independent Chinese origin....

As I recall, Joseph Needham (the late eminent historian of Chinese science
and technology at the University of Cambridge) regarded it as
'proto-chess',
yet comparable enough to be considered the ancestor of 'Western chess'.

There appears to be much less excuse for denying India an early close
relationship to western chess.


Didn't I write that it demonstrated that a woman could play in the first
tier? We seem to be in agreement on that. I'm not sure I asserted
anything
more than that, or why any 'exactness' is required.

Phil, you wrote, 'It constitutes a proof', immediately *after* a paragraph
in which you made *other assertions* besides than the one about Judit
Polgar.
You did *not* specify exactly what 'it' refers to in your statement,
'It constitutes a proof'. Please attempt to write more clearly.

I think I have previously encountered this situation on usenet. Sometimes
its also necessary to understand more clearly. I hope "its" now clear; to
wit,

J. Polgar proved she could play chess with the first tier of male players,
and this demonstration of ability constitutes a proof, ipso facto.

~~~~~~~
Cordially, Phil Innes

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message
news:xJiac.141740$po.869810@attbi_s52...
"Phil Innes" wrote ...
Well Nick, I should have and did make a direct reply to Tim Hanke.

Thus far there have been 4 replies to my post without a contribution by
Tim;
by J. Fernandez, E. Johnson, yourself and N. Brennan, each dilating it
to
an area of their choice, and sometimes wit.

Phil,

Sometimes I have trouble understanding your points.

O good. That might mean they are not the usual claptrap of self-declared
brilliance, genius-level, only-solution, other-people-are-daft, absolutely
conclusive resolutions, to which other poster don't know nuthin' and
shouldn't challenge.

They might not be 'points' of resolution at all. Could they be questions?

I know questions are unusual in newsgroups, and resented because it is hard
to attack a question, no? [lol]

The essential question I asked resulting from your post was on the
sociological condition of most women in our society which you seemed not to
notice in a somewhat one-sided address.

Cordially, Phil Innes


Tim Hanke

Phil Innes wrote:
I know questions are unusual in newsgroups, and resented because it is
hard to attack a question, no? [lol]

Questions are easy to attack -- just dismiss the question (and, hence, the
questioner) as stupid. For example, `That you should need to ask such a
stupid question makes it obvious that you have the intellect of a retarded
tapeworm.' Easy! Next!


Dave.

--
David Richerby Sadistic Mentholated Beer (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a refreshing lager but it's
invigorating and it wants to hurt you!

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Phil Innes wrote:
I know questions are unusual in newsgroups, and resented because it is
hard to attack a question, no? [lol]

Questions are easy to attack -- just dismiss the question (and, hence, the
questioner) as stupid. For example, `That you should need to ask such a
stupid question makes it obvious that you have the intellect of a retarded
tapeworm.' Easy! Next!

And of course the reply is forced.... I have known pathologically criminal
tapeworms with more innate curiosity, manners and ELO than... Next!

Dave.

--
David Richerby Sadistic Mentholated Beer (TM):
it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a refreshing lager but it's
invigorating and it wants to hurt
you!

AARGH! Reminds me of Spring Surprise in the Python Chocolate Box.

Don't think they ever did a chess skit. The Bard script was bad enough... He
has written the definite article, he had definitely written the definite
article, wait wait, Nooooo, he's crossed it out, Noooooo he's... re-written
it, corssed it out. Hola! He's written a whole sentence! O my gosh he's
crossed it out again! [short version]. At least in chess you can't retake
your moves.

Phil Innes wrote:
I know questions are unusual in newsgroups, and resented because it is
hard to attack a question, no? [lol]


Actually Phil is asking a question here--isn't that tricky? By questions, I
think he means opinions that you disagree with because you in a sense answer
questions not attack them. People do speak of attacking problems in the sense
that they are looking for a way to solve the problem.

Opinions are tough because it often becomes a matter of one person's word or
opion against another's. There is a wide misunderstanding of what the word
fact means. A fact is something that can be either proven true or false.
There are true facts and false facts. The misunderstanding is that facts are
things that are true.

If a thing cannot be proven true or false in is a opinion and will remain so
until it can be proven one way or the other.

Given the burden of proof, it is so much easier to attack the person rather
than prove his opinion right or wrong.

As Dave Richerby put it:Questions are easy to attack -- just dismiss the
question (and, hence, the
questioner) as stupid. For example, `That you should need to ask such a
stupid question makes it obvious that you have the intellect of a retarded
tapeworm.' Easy! Next!

Chess One opined:
AARGH! Reminds me of Spring Surprise in the Python Chocolate Box.


In regards to questions

It also reminds me of the Spanish inquisition bit that begins with a question
and then the answer, "What is this the Spanish Inquisition".

Of course, according to the Pythons, the answer was, "Yes (Si), no one expects
the Spanish Inquistion. Surprise is our secret weapon!"

Of course what really up sets opinionated people is if your question pertains
to the validity of their opinions, especially if some of that they say is
sensible and some not and your question is designed to sort it out.

This is easily seen in the areas of religion and conspiracy theories of
history. Remember people usually get the sort of government they deserve