Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/09/2009 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    There's an overwhelming over-abundance of more than enough information. And that's just in any single frame of the video. Consider all of the content of all of the frames, and there are multiple, layered, redundant means of determining whether or not any entity, attribute, action or effect seen in any frame conforms to reality. The space, the objects within it, and the motions are all precisely measurable. Then add all of the visual information from other cameras at other vantage points... Each participant on this thread who has commented on the visual evidence is right about some things, yet wrong about others. The issue is not that the visual evidence is insufficient, but that none of you has the technical knowledge to be making any conclusions, or to be dismissing anyone else's observations or concerns, or to be throwing accusations of kookiness or conspiracy theorizing at anyone who thinks that something in a photo looks a bit odd. J
  2. 3 points
    https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-milkyway-over-beaverhill-county-jestephotography-ltd.html Something a lil different than my Wildlife photography. Nikon Z7 mirrorless with a Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 Art series lens for Astrophotography.
  3. 3 points
    I hope my posts get a lot of sads (from the anti-Trump bitches!)
  4. 2 points
    Last July Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard published “Regarding Carl Barney and Scientology” in defense of Barney. That didn’t satisfy some of his readers so a few days ago he published a Part Two, same webpage as what is now called Part One. I review it at: Barney Continues Telling His Story
  5. 2 points
    They're being softened up for committing ritual suicide. Ellen
  6. 2 points
    Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
  7. 2 points
    By Ron Unz, the latest in his American Pravda series: John McCain, Jeffrey Epstein, and Pizzagate “Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings” It’s long but the lucid style makes it easy to read.
  8. 2 points
    It's true that the strategy isn't going to work, but "dealing with climate change" isn't what it's aimed at. Ruling the world is. Ellen
  9. 2 points
    I'm not here to defend the morality of most self-proclaimed secularists (I should add, secularism is merely one political position, not a whole ideology in and of itself. Objectivism is a secular philosophy that promotes secularism, after all). I think you're going off topic. The reality is that "being good without god" is a significant question that many theists ponder. Natural Law provided an answer to that question. And Christians/Evangelicals never appealed to the state to enshrine their values? Evangelical Christianity in particular has been resolutely illiberal. They only defend classical liberalism when convenient for them, or when they're losing a culture war. When they're in power, they have shown a consistent tendency towards using the state to enforce their beliefs on others. Not that most members of the secular left are any better. But again, that isn't the point.
  10. 2 points
    Sunny Lohmann hosts a podcast featuring Ed Powell and Ed Mazlish: youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo
  11. 2 points
    Many of them sincerely believe, it’s just that they want you to die, first. They want your home burned down and turned back to prairie. Then they can enjoy earth with a smaller, sustainable population. How many who oppose pipelines have turned off their pipeline? None. That would be suicide.
  12. 2 points
    One of the general differences between those on the left and right is that the right understands the left's views... You can see this with their parody and satire. Leftist characters are portrayed accurately, and sometimes, right-wing media creators can even explain the left's views better than actual leftists. The parody and satire created by leftists, though, is consistently egregious--like the description of Jussie Smollett's attackers, for example (pretty much every right leaning person knew it was bullshit immediately). Again, it's a generalization. Obviously not all right-wingers understand the left's talking points, but for the most part, they get it... while for the left, the opposite is true. They can't even conceive of what they are arguing against. So what you end up with is ignorant, and possibly stupid, people who the right is gently trying to point out as ignorant and stupid... which reaffirms the leftist's belief that people on the right are immoral (mean). Obviously accusing someone of being immoral is worse than accusing someone of being stupid... so it's insane. This is pretty much just venting... but it's really annoying that this is the case. Politics has become a chore where people with good ideas have to hold the hands of their attackers to help them see what they're missing.
  13. 2 points
  14. 2 points
    You are saying either A always causes B, or A never causes B. It can't be A caused B in this particular case. Causes have contexts. The elderly woman in my example probably had weak bones. The weak bones would be a context. It is not necessary to say vaccination always causes autism in order to say vaccination caused autism in this case.
  15. 2 points
    The suicide note left by Fidel Castro’s eldest son has rocked the Cuban nation this week, with the most astonishing revelation being the claim that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was his half-brother and the son of the late Fidel Castro. http://whatsupic.com/index/cuba-justin-trudeau-fidel-castros-son/
  16. 2 points
  17. 2 points
    So today I had an interesting post on my twitter feed. A person looking to purchase a rights managed image for an add campaign. So I sent her my personal email via Message in order to get more details. i sent her a link to the image she wanted and ten minutes later BAM! https://fineartamerica.com/saleannouncement.html?id=9becce4a0811b1bc99e633e17bff67ee Kinda cool eh?
  18. 2 points
    Alex Jones is a fighter. He will kick their asses so hard that they will have to clear their throat to fart. They will wish to God they never tangled with Alex Jones.
  19. 2 points
    The perjury trap ...
  20. 2 points
  21. 2 points
    Heh. Why pick on InfoWars? Sure, it's often goofy, but it's really no more goofy than anything else. CNN, New York Times, Time. It's equal to or possibly a little less goofy that The View, Dan Rather and any of the former Democrat politicians and operatives who are now calling themselves "journalists" (like George Stephanopoulos, for example). Why single out InfoWars? MSK is supposed to be embarrassed by his goof balls while the other side reveres theirs and pretends that they're not good balls?
  22. 2 points
    Can a person really be economically coerced, or is it simply a choice? Was Cohen using the tapes for insurance or a way to blackmail President Trump? Can he be disbarred? In Maryland I don’t think you can record someone unless they know what your are doing. Peter From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 01:29:41 -0500 a.d. smith wrote: "Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force. I was wondering how my fellow Atlanteans would reply to this argument I think I did a fairly good job in elucidating the differences between physical force and "economic coercion," but I could have done better. What would you guys have said in this situation?” I find that well-constructed examples and counter-examples can sometimes communicate the distinction better than abstract arguments, or at least serve as an introduction to them. Many years ago, during a college seminar on Marxism, my professor gave the following popular example: Suppose I am stranded in the middle of the desert, and I run across the only oasis in my vicinity. It is privately owned, and the owner tells me that I must (a) work for him at fifty cents per hour, or (b) stay off his property. And since he is charging $5,000 for the food and water that are required to sustain my life during the remainder of my journey, this means that I am being economically coerced -- indeed, enslaved -- since I must either accept the offer or face certain death. I responded by changing one condition of the example. The same oasis owner has more money than he knows what to do with, so (as before) he tells me that I must take a job to earn my supplies, but he now offers me $10,000 per hour instead of fifty cents. So now I can earn what I need in 30 minutes (during which the owner, who is starved for intellectual companionship, only requests that I talk to him about philosophy) and even walk away with a handsome surplus. The professor then protested, "But that's not a realistic example." "Neither is your example," I replied, "but that's not the point. The purpose of the example is to isolate the key elements that generate what you call economic coercion. If your example, in which I am economically coerced to work for 50 cents an hour is valid, then so is my example where I am economically coerced to work for $10,000 per hour by discussing philosophy. I didn't change anything essential in the hypothetical; all I did was change some details, which should be irrelevant to the point you are making. So if you claim that my example doesn't qualify as economic coercion, then why doesn't it? I will die just as surely if I turn down the offer for $10,000 as if I refuse to work for fifty cents. What's the difference? According to your definition, I am being coerced in either case -- but it sounds a little strange to say that I am being 'forced' to work at the higher wage. You are loading the example in your favor by including very low wages, but the amount of the wage is immaterial to the point you wish to make. Surely the validity of your argument should not depend solely on its emotional appeal, so it should make equal sense to take about a wage-slave who is forced to discuss philosophy at $10,000 per hour." I don't remember my exact words, of course, but the preceding is a fair representation of my argument. It took the discussion in some interesting directions that might otherwise have been overlooked – such as whether the CEO of a multinational corporation is also economically "coerced" to accept his multi-million dollar salary -- and the discussion ended when the Marxist professor said, "Well, I'll have to give some additional thought to your example." That's about as close to an unconditional surrender as a student is ever likely to get from a professor. Ghs From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 04:40:33 EDT A. D. Smith wrote "Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force.” There is no such thing as "economic coercion." We owe it to people not to use force against them; we do not owe it to them to supply them with employment nor to keep them employed if we do not choose to. People have a right to seek jobs; they do not have a right to *have* jobs if the employer finds them unsuitable. So to threaten an employee with firing is in no sense of the term "coercion." The job is not his by right, but only by the decision of the owner of the business. Barbara From: "a.d. smith" To: "George H. Smith" Subject: Re: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 05:06:07 -0400 (EDT) On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, George H. Smith wrote: The example of the oasis brings up my friend's second basic argument --- the possibility that first-comers may claim all the natural resources in an area to the detriment of people who arrive in the area later. These people may hold their property without improving or with mixing only a token portion of their labor with it.(I pointed that historically most examples of land speculation of this type were made possible by the state, but his point was that even in a stateless society, this type of engrossing could be possible. My reply was that under a system of competing governments, a protection agency that enforced an obviously illegitimate claim to unimproved natural resources would likely arose the anger of the community at large). From: "William Dwyer" To: Atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:34:02 -0700 a.d. smith wrote, >The example of the oasis brings up my friend's second basic argument --- the possibility that first-comers may claim all the natural resources in an area to the detriment of people who arrive in the area later. These people may hold their property without improving or with mixing only a token portion of their labor with it. > I fail to see how this is an argument against capitalism, since capitalism doesn't sanction this kind of unearned appropriation. In order to acquire property under capitalism, you need to mix your labor with a previously unowned resource, or acquire the property from its previous owner by mutual consent. Obviously, there are issues with regard to the specifics of acquiring previously unowned land, but these cannot form the basis of any serious argument against capitalism. I n any case, the Coase Theorem in economics (for which Ronald Coase was given the Nobel Prize) states that if property rights are clearly defined and transaction costs are low, resources will tend to flow towards their highest valued uses, regardless of who owns them. In other words, even assuming that people could appropriate land without mixing their labor with it, in a free-market economy, the land could be bid away in exchange for money. The highest bid would tend to reflect its most profitable uses, by reflecting what consumers would be most willing to spend their money on. Thus, under capitalism, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference how the property is initially acquired. It will eventually be allocated toward its most popular and desired uses. If laissez-faire capitalism existed in Latin America, for example, the large landed aristocracies would not last, because they would either be induced to sell their land at an exorbitant price, or to use it in ways that are the most profitable and consumer-friendly. Bill
  23. 2 points
  24. 2 points
    Folks , Trump did not win an election but orchestrate a coup d’etat against the establishment . This ain’t left and right , nor liberals and conservatives . It’s We The People v The Establushment Bullets are not the weapon of choice in this Revolution , it’s memes . I called this a Revolution near the beginning of the thread . I thought that the establishment would win , hence I called for Rubio to win the nomination . Trump won , he is digging in and personally , I would love to see The Constitution to be amended to give him three terms , but that cannot happen so hopefully President Ivanka will continue what we have started in 2024 . Who is Donald Trump ? Reread Atlas Shrugged
  25. 1 point
  26. 1 point
    Murderous weirdo and huge Democratic fund raiser pal of Senator Liddle Adam Schitt has finally been arrested. This third victim didn’t even die, but something has changed in California. “LOS ANGELES – Ed Buck, a prominent Democratic Party donor, was arrested Tuesday and charged with operating a drug house after a third man reportedly suffered an overdose inside his West Hollywood home last week and survived. “These fetishes include supplying and personally administering dangerously large doses of narcotics to his victims,” the prosecutors wrote, according to the Times.” I think he may be playing charades. The answer phrase is See You in 2020. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/us/major-democratic-donor-ed-buck-arrested-charged-with-running-drug-den.amp
  27. 1 point
    If Epstein were murdered, with the stage subsequently set to make it look like a suicide by hanging, the perpetrators would have made it appear it was an accidental hanging, specifically a case of auto-erotic asphyxiation. Because reasons. But they didn’t, so it wasn’t a murder. QED. Moron or lunatic? http://sorbusaucuparius.blogspot.com/2012/08/umberto-ecos-four-types-of-idiot.html Hint: no reference (above) to the Templars. But seriously, if evidence of a struggle emerges, such as injuries to the hands, fingernails etc, then the probability space will have to be reallocated. Jeffrey Dahmer and John Geoghan were murdered in prison, but neither death was confused with suicide. As it is, suicide is the most likely explanation for the facts we have.
  28. 1 point
    Actually, Ralphie got an A + + + + + + + +
  29. 1 point
    Jon, OK. When writing, I believed you (and others) believe that. Now you have asserted it is poetry. So you do believe it. You do! You do! Michael
  30. 1 point
    I promised Merlin that I would analyze his "solutions" to see if they were correct. Of course, Jonathan, Jon Letendre, and Max have already analyzed his "solutions," so my analysis won't really add anything new. Still, I need to make good on my promise. Here are Merlin's solutions as taken from the relevant Wikipedia page: Aristotle's paradox is related to the fact that it is possible to find a one-to-one mapping of all the points in an interval of a particular length to all of the points in an interval of a different length. Since none of the "solutions" above has anything to do with the actual paradox, they are not solutions to the paradox. In fact, the paradox is misstated in the quote above. The fact that the smaller circle moves a distance that is different from its circumference is a simple mechanical observation, not a paradox. Max gives the solution to the paradox above: That is of course the fallacy. The interval [0,2] contains infinitely many points, and infinity is not a natural number, therefore the notion of density doesn't work, as the density is also infinite, and 2 * ∞ = ∞. Cantor, cardinality, continuum and all that. It isn't surprising that people like Aristotle and Galileo didn't understand such things well. Therefore those helpless attempts to consider circles "jumping" or "waiting" to make up for differences in traveled distance in Aristotle's paradox. Because the number and density of points in an interval are infinite, it makes no sense to compare the number or density of points in a interval to the length of the interval. 2 * ∞ = ∞. One of the "solutions" given by Merlin, involves the use of cycloids. Although cycloids don't help with the solution of Aristotle's paradox, they can be used to help solve another problem that some people seem to be having, namely comprehending the fact that a wheel may be rotating and translating at the same time. First, I will note the fact (pointed out by Max in an earlier post) that if a wheel rolls without slipping, the point of the wheel in contact with the ground must be stationary at the moment of contact. Since the quote above makes reference to Mathworld, I will use the equations listed there except that I will use "r" or "R" for the radius of the circle. If R is the radius of the large circle and if it rolls on its line, then the motion of a point on its circumference is given by the parametric equations: x = R * (t - sin(t)) y = R * (1 - cos(t)) Those are the equations of the point that starts in the 6 o'clock position. Let (u, v) be the velocity of the point. Then (u, v) = (dx/dt, dy/dt) or u = R * (1 - cos(t)) v = R * sin(t) Now, we can observe that (u, v) = (0, 0) whenever t = 2 * π * k, for k = 0, 1, 2, ... In other words, the point is stationary whenever it returns to the 6 o'clock position. Now, consider a point on an inner circle of radius r < R that starts in the 6 o'clock position. As claimed above, the point does indeed describe a curtate cycloid given by the equations: x = R * t - r * sin(t) y = R - r * cos(t) Again, we can calculate the velocity of the point by taking derivatives: u = R - r * cos(t) v = r * sin(t) Since -1 <= cos(t) <= 1, we have R - r <= u <= R + r. Therefore, the horizontal component of the velocity is never equal to zero. In fact, it is always strictly greater than zero. Therefore, the inner circle does not roll on its line. When the point is in the 6 o'clock position, its speed is equal to R - r which shows that the wheel is skidding or slipping in the +x direction. We can also consider the case in which the inner circle rolls on its line and the outer circle is along for the ride. In this case, we have a prolate cycloid given by: x = r * t - R * sin(t) y = r - R * cos(t) Again: u = r - R * cos(t) v = R * sin(t) In this case, the horizontal component of the velocity is zero whenever r - R * cos(t) = 0. That happens when cos(t) = r / R. Now, consider a right triangle with leg a = r and hypotenuse c = R. Then the length of the other side, b = √(R2 - r2) so that sin(t) = √(R2 - r2) / R. But, that implies that sin(t) =/= 0 so that the vertical component of the velocity is not zero at the same time as the horizontal component. Therefore, the outer circle (or wheel) never has a point in stationary contact with its line. It is always skidding or slipping on its surface. The prolate case can also be examined by first setting the y-component of the velocity equal to zero. That happens whenever the point is in either the 6 o'clock or 12 o'clock position. In this case, we are only interested in the case in which the point is at the bottom which happens whenever t = 2 * π * k, for k = 0, 1, 2, ... In that position, the horizontal component of the velocity, u = r - R which shows that the large wheel is slipping backward --- opposite the direction of motion of the center point. As I said at the outset, this demonstration doesn't show anything beyond what was already shown by numerous graphical and mathematical methods. It merely serves to illustrate the point that using cycloids results in the same conclusion as other methods. Darrell
  31. 1 point
    Watch what Michael Palin does: He actually travels east instead of west, but no matter, just assume he walked west instead. It looks like the circle he's walking in is about 20 feet in circumference, so let's assume it's precisely 20 feet. If, to satisfy step 2, he were to do that walk 264 times (exactly one mile), his end point would be exactly the same degree of longitude as where he started. He could then walk north one mile to satisfy step 3.
  32. 1 point
    Click on your name at the top left of OL. Go to the "do not see messages place" and type in his name. He Really is an ab-whorent psycho. something is really wrong there.
  33. 1 point
    Very good article. Trump's Master Spooks Behind the scenes, Trump's spooks are destroying the enemies of the Republic, using astonishing tradecraft. Their assault has been devastating, as REX explains. https://quodverum.com/2018/12/337/trump-s-master-spooks.html
  34. 1 point
    Slippage is starting to smell like a smuggled-in stolen concept.
  35. 1 point
    MSK, Welcome to discussion! You may have missed it earlier, but here's a video of what happens when a large wheel rolls freely on a surface without slipping, and it carries along the smaller wheel which is firmly attached to it. The small wheel necessarily slips/skids while it rolls on the surface at its base (as described in the actual "Aristotle's Wheel Paradox," rather than the one that Merlin has recently dishonestly edited at Wikipedia in order to fake reality). The issue here is that Merlin and Tony can't visually track and grasp the small wheel's slippage/skidding on its surface under conditions which don't include as much visual information as in the above. In the above video example, I've included all sorts of textures and markings so that anyone should be able to track the motion and see what's happening. The problem has been that other visual representations haven't included any such markings, and, without them, people like Merlin and Tony very easily get lost and confused. But they don't want to accept the fact that they've been fooled, so they choose to believe their mistaken interpretations of the visual representations which don't have textures and markings, and they therefore conclude that above representation, in which the slippage/skidding is clearly visually obvious, is, as Merlin has claimed, a "con job," a "scam," and an "optical illusion." Jon had also posted videos of marked wheels and surfaces in which the slippage/skidding is undeniable, and none of it has gotten through to Merlin or Tony. They are not cognitively suited to grasping it. They are visuospatially/mechanically inept (that's not a moral judgment, but a simple, objective evaluation of their cognitive abilities in this area). And they are also stubborn, and refusing to consider others' arguments and evidence. J
  36. 1 point
    I have one more thing to say, Peter. I have been the subject of rather extreme incivility here at OL on several occasions and I do not recall you saying one word in those cases. If you continue like that - saying nothing when I am viciously attacked, but then waiting until I lose patience with some snippy dolt who can’t visualize or conceptualize or otherwise analyse rolling - then the positive way I see you is going to change.
  37. 1 point
    Same here! Tony, tell us about this one...
  38. 1 point
    LOL... Perfect: Michael
  39. 1 point
    Damn, another one.
  40. 1 point
  41. 1 point
    Ok, that shows her using it as a heuristic herself. So it's kosher. Not too long ago I heard Yaron Brook criticize TAS for ascribing a different "villain" quote to Rand. Someone posted it on OL.
  42. 1 point
    The first step in grasping what is really going on is to grasp that no MSM outlet will ever come out and say what is really going on. Look at their behavior over decades - they are not neutral but are soldiers in a war, Some people are only halfway through this step: they understand that the real answer will not come from MSM, but they still consume a lot of MSM and they subconsciously accept the constructs they consume. But the constructs are utterly false and their acceptance derails any chance at seeing the truth even if they happened upon it. In this case the construct is that the Saudis and Canadians are disputing about Canadian human rights criticism of the Saudis. The Saudis can’t take criticism, so they are going berserk, throwing out diplomats and immediately going to nuclear trade war. A simpleton readily accepts all the above construct because he has met such people. Cashiers at cheap stores, the popcorn guy at the movies - “people like that are everywhere, I know because I’ve met many of them.” The simpleton accepts the construct and then the entire explanation provided. There is really nothing here to investigate or understand, he concludes, just some abusive tyrants who can’t take criticism and are choosing to wreck economies and international relations, instead. The non-simpleton rejects the entire construct. The non-simpleton understands the Saud family have been in power in the most cutthroat part of the world for about one hundred years. They are among the most wealthy and powerful people on the planet. Criticism of them is constant, anyway. The chance that the construct reflects reality is precisely zero. And yet the Saudis do seem to be going hard on the Canadians, as though something very big is happening - so what can we conclude? Something very big is happening.
  43. 1 point
    Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist needs his head examined.
  44. 1 point
    LOLOL... I found this on the Interwebs somewhere. Michael
  45. 1 point
    According to Brook they lost a big donor. Rumor is they axes 15 of 50 employees a couple weeks ago.
  46. 1 point
    What is a shadow government if not the Deep State? I suppose we could ask Philip Mudd, deep state spook for Bush and Obama, prouid shitholer, and whose great grandfather, Samuel Mudd, conspired with John Wilkes Booth to assassinate Abraham Lincoln, since he is so crazy for the shadow government to rise up. He'll probably tell you on national TV. He'll definitely tell you it should rise up. CNN's Philip Mudd Calls for ‘Shadow Government’ to Rise Up, Oppose Trump Direct quote from the video by Phiip Mudd (my bold): And what does "rise up" or "come out" or "we cannot side with" mean to Deep State spooks? Coup? Assassination? Interesting questions... Michael
  47. 1 point
    Okay, so the poll that Trump cited had 62 percent of hispanics saying that they were better off under Trump, but the number was 42 percent for all respondents (and not just hispanics) compared to 30% who said that they were "about the same," and 26 percent who said that they were "worse off," so it's snickerty snickens tee hee hee time? Oh my god, how mathematically inept tee hee hee and embarrassing! An additional tee hee hee gotcha by the press is their pointing out that the poll question didn't actually ask about Obama by name, but only about a point of time during which he was president, so, therefore Trump's having said that Americans and especially hispanics are better off under his leadership than Obama's is a great big lie! The left has lost its damned mind. J
  48. 1 point
    The left ate my homework.
  49. 1 point
    It must be wonderful to be sure of what is causing the things that are most distressing and inexplicable to many of us. I wish I could believe the dark forces had such superhuman powers of cooperation, efficiency and micro-managing of human affairs, and could categorize everything that happens through the lens of their machinations. But I can't , anymore than I can just believe everything is God's will.
  50. 1 point
    Oooh, 'folks like yourself who see only' blah. This is gibberish to me, Adam. You have no argument, just apparent prejudice. I would ask you to flesh out your gibberish, but I don't think you can. I don't think you can connect your brief angry meta-analysis to facts. Such is bigotry and ignorance and pretension to knowledge. That you cannot seem to understand the horrors of war in Syria that have led to the 'hordes' leaving, there is no rational fruit to discussion with you. As if some unknown-to-you actor has whipped up an invasion. Pitiful prejudice and irrationality to my eyes. This is no good, Tony. You seem uninterested in challenges to the propaganda of the video. So be it. I shouldn't bother with trying to reason along with you as long as you ignore the import of my previous remarks entirely. As you seem to assume "both rates [will] remain steady" in succeeding generations, I can't get purchase on shared cognitive ground ... But, maybe this is the crux: you do not know how many children a second-generation French Muslim woman will have. You haven't tried to research this question, instead falling back on 'surmises.' That may indicate something important about the way you think on this issue -- in terms of Them, of collectives, of innate Muslim fecundity, a fecundity that cannot be and is not influenced by the societies in which they make their homes. What other facts need? You haven't given any facts. I am wondering if I should file you with Jerry as supporting "They are breeding like flies" and believing the ugly alarmism of ISLAM TAKING OVER EUROPE ! This thread should have been lodged in the Garbage Pile, in my opinion. Ignorance, prejudice and bigotry are not what I associate with Objectivist Living.