Ellen Stuttle

Members
  • Content count

    5,754
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Ellen Stuttle

  • Rank
    $$$$$$

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Psychology, Physics, Philosophy, Literature, Music
  1. Aristotle's wheel paradox

    So you have a reading problem too? Ellen
  2. Aristotle's wheel paradox

    Me (here): "how would you guarantee that you did the math on your own?" How would you be providing your solution to what you seem to think is a very difficult problem if you just looked up and copied a solution? (Why anyone would bet a cent that you couldn't provide a solution which you could just look up and copy, I don't know.) Ellen
  3. Aristotle's wheel paradox

    The only thing to solve is a mathematics-of-motion problem, not an actual paradox, and how would you guarantee that you did the math on your own? You have internet access, if not some mechanical engineering texts you could consult. Ellen
  4. Aristotle's wheel paradox

    Acknowledged that the inner circle doesn't literally slip relative to the outer circle, since it isn't rotating on an actual surface. Nonetheless, the 6:00 point of the inner circle moves farther than the length of the circumference of the inner circle. So I don't see that there is a paradox. (As I understand the supposed paradox, it's the supposition that the red line both is and isn't equal to the circumference of the smaller circle.) Ellen
  5. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    LOL. How many a priori facts are there? And how do you know if you have a fact without using epistemological principles? Or what a fact is without using metaphysical principles? And "Principles and Romantic Notions can kill one deader than dust" (quoting you from here) is a principle, although not a well-formulated one. Ellen
  6. Fake News

    I think the debunking article is actually by Dee McLachlan, though posted on the Gumshoe site by Dahlia Mae. Whichever person wrote it apparently did miss that the original news report from which Dmitry cribbed almost word-for-word (except for a changed phrase to make the death look suspicious) was from July, a month earlier than Dmitry's report. I noticed the date discrepancy when doing a bit of looking on the web for commentary. How Dmitry thought he could get away with it - if he did think he could - I don't know. Maybe he knew he'd be caught but doesn't care. There are reports of his having done similar things before - for instance, a deathbed confession re 9/11 from a non-existent person with the story using a photo of someone or other who was dying in a hospital. I think the NewsPunch site used to be callied something else and only recently changed the name - another detail I noticed in some quick web searching. Haven't looked further. Haven't had time. The way I was led to the Barnard death article is because someone Larry and I know sent us a link to an article about Charlotesville by Dmitry. Although I think that parts of that article are accurate, parts of it made me suspicious, so a i checked out the NewsPunch site. Dmitry posts a lot. I wager he also cribs a lot and just changes some specifics. Ellrn
  7. Fake News

    Supposedly scientific advocates of DAGW (dangerous anthropogenic global warming) are also making the shift from saying that humans burning fossil fuels caused the hurricane to saying that it enhanced the hurricane - especially that it enhanced the amount of rainfall. This shift might have started with the Texas State Climatologist, but I'm not sure who started it. At any rate it's being used by "scientific" alarmists and it's indicative of increasing insecurity about alarmist claims. Ellen
  8. Fake News

    Speaking of fake news, Michael, have you noticed the flak about this false death report by one Baxter Dmitry of NewsPunch? "Ronald Bernard, Dutch Banker Who Exposed Illuminati, Found Dead" The person found dead was a local Sebring, Florida, man named Ronald Bernard Fernandez. I'm surprised that Dmitry still hasn't taken down the article. In case he does take it down, part of it is quoted here. The reporter, Dee McLachlan, leaves out most of a paragraph in which Dmitry slipped in his cribbing from the original news article and left the name "Fernandez." Ellen
  9. Fake News

    Michael quotes from the Nolte article: //quote//The last place-CNN has never even tried to disguise its unbridled hate for all things southern and Texan. CNN’s cultural supremacists are constantly smearing Christians and conservatives and southerners as backwards bigots. And everyone knows that the only reason CNN is even paying attention to a natural disaster in a Red State is in the hopes that the president they are hoping to oust through fake news will do something the leftwing network can turn into a “Katrina moment.”//end quote// Trump isn't the only reason CNN is paying attention to the hurricane disaster. Possibly the second reason, but I think the first reason is for hyping "climate change" alarm. I don't think I'd seen "cultural supremacists" before. If I did, I didn't notice. Ha! Ellen
  10. The Epistemology of Intimidation by Hatred

    Ellen, I should have qualified that better. I meant most atheists who speak about it in public or join promote-atheism groups. (I know few others simply because my social life is not active right now. ) Also, I have see a good contingent of the kind of atheist I mean in RandLand. Michael I just realized that my sentence could be taken to imply that I'm not an atheist. I am, have been since I was twelve and concluded that the idea of "God" is superfluous. However, far from crusading about atheism, I rarely mention my disbelief in God to believers, unless in circumstances where I think I should to prevent misunderstanding. I think that there are plenty of other people who, like me (and my husband), are quiet atheists. The crusading type you speak of, Michael, can be obnoxious even to quiet disbelievers. I speak from experience of some anti-God crusaders by whom I've been berated more excoriatingly for my live-and-let-live attitude than I've ever been berated by any believer I've known for my disbelief. Agreed about there being a contingent of the sort you mean in RandLand. Ellen
  11. The Epistemology of Intimidation by Hatred

    The smokescreen you speak of is operative - behind the scenes groups that fund both sides of an issue to keep dissension active (with the exception of the climate issue, where the alarm side is very significant to globalist agendas and there's an attempt to prevent awareness of any challenge to alarmism). Agreed, too, about the religious fundamentalist intensity of the hatred displayed by many atheists. Don't know about "most," since I think that there are atheists who aren't crusading about it and who don't get noticed. But the liberal educated academic sort can be very vicious in their antipathy to belief in God (unless the believer is Islamist). Ellen
  12. Charlottesville Unite the Right Rally Madness

    I, too, like Preston's approach very much. I didn't listen to the podcast, however. I only listen to podcasts if I think they're something of extreme importance. Thanks for relaying that line about "Revenge of the Nerds." Spot on. Ellen
  13. Charlottesville Unite the Right Rally Madness

    Here's a direct link to the article "Some Initial Thoughts on Charlottesville" by Keith Preston: https://attackthesystem.com/2017/08/14/some-initial-thoughts-on-charlottesville/ The article is long, but it gives meticulous details of the event sequence and includes breakdown analyses of the composition of the conglomerates on both sides. It concludes with psychological observations about leftist and rightist characteristics. Michael, I think you'd find those interesting. Preston calls Trump's response "the most reasonable response thus far": Ellen
  14. APS and the Global Warming Scam

    Oh. That would make sense. I've never listened to him, just read such transcripts as you've provided, so I could easily have been missing a context which his public knows. Ellen
  15. APS and the Global Warming Scam

    In this case, not paying attention to what the subject was which Michael and I were discussing. We were talking about what Rush Limbaugh said the alarmists should have said, NOT about plausible scientific theories. In the early years of the hiatus, the alarmists (note: I'm specifically talking about alarmist scientists) did try various explanations - some of them far-fetched - for why the prognosticated warming wasn't happening. But here's the rub: For alarmist blame-humans scenarios to look viable, it has to be the case that atmospheric CO2 concentration is the primary driver of global temperatures, and the longer the hiatus continued, the less viable this requirement became. So what the alarmists started doing as their main tactic was to try to get rid of the hiatus with data maneuvering and verbal tricks. As to the various ways in which you manage to produce self-contradictory statements, multiple - and no point in keeping after you about them, since you don't track at all well and largely just charge off on some info-bite or other instead of addressing what the person you're answering has said. It gets too tiresome quickly. Ellen