Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/09/2009 in Blog Comments

  1. I think you're right, in the long run. (POTUS has already made clear he'll intervene if the mayor and governor don't step up, and since they're flipped him off in response, he most likely will.) But I admit that I personally can't just casually dismiss the short-term threats, if the reports are true about businesses being "shaken down", the property damage, etc. I'm also thinking about how it's affecting people psychologically, having to witness this, especially the potentially innocent people caught in the cross-fire. (And now, there's someone acting as "warlord" already edging out Antifa?
    2 points
  2. My thought wasn’t directed solely at Brad and not necessarily only about money. Gore and Gore-like people do it to fleece money from the ‘system’ , Hollywood type virtue-signalers are probably motivated by an inherent narcissism. And they need their parrots to help move masses to accept the building of the ‘system’ or even to just be complacent enough to not fight back against the building .
    2 points
  3. Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding the issue in regards to falsifiability. Once again, falsifiable hypothesis and their approx date: And their conclusions:
    2 points
  4. Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
    2 points
  5. 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
    2 points
  6. So does William discuss? No, he posts a link: Slide, slip, slither, avoid - and then whine if you're called dishonest And what the linked-to list is about, as Michael points out, isn't how to have a discussion but how to indoctrinate. Ellen
    2 points
  7. 2 points
  8. Jonathan, It's funny. When you ask for repeatable scientific results re Climate Change, you always get blah blah blah and they never use the term "repeatable results." It's like going into a small eatery and saying, "Do you have an ice cream cone?" And the person says, "Here's some tasty steamed octopus." You ask, "What about an ice cream cone?" The person says, "Look at these green beans and mashed potatoes. How big a portion do you want?" "But I want an ice cream cone." "Well, you've come to the right place. Our mac and cheese is amazing." "Don't you
    2 points
  9. Oh, I am staggered! It is a genius plot and This Story Must Be Told. And finally the world will see sex scenes that reflect Real Life and Right Values and Canadian Respectability, I can't wait! I must commune with my muse now -- the first lines of dialogue are coming to me -- oh, oh, ohhh!
    2 points
  10. Just for the reader: Q clearance. This is a super-high-level government security clearance, not QAnon. Michael
    1 point
  11. Not much longer. And it will be particularly amusing to watch the Free Seattle Zone twerps scream like little girls when they are beaten and taken away in unmarked cars.
    1 point
  12. Some readers may not go to a Twitter thread off the OL site, so I'll add this in as an example of what you are missing.
    1 point
  13. Here is an article from Jemima Kelly at the Financial Times. I will stretch the criteria for fair-use as much as I can:
    1 point
  14. Elsewhere ... What is funny/sad about this is that whoever is manning the Q account on 8kun had to do some cleanup ...
    1 point
  15. No, fabricator. I didn't fall for an "illusion" and said nothing about being being dazzled. I dared the conceptually and mechanically inept Jonathan to explain why what happens does happen. He failed. You and Brant also didn't explain why or even feel it was needed. I'm not surprised. None of you saw the significance of the center of the moving coin. Déjà vu. Analysis and Solution Why does the moving coin make two rotations? From start to end the center of the moving coin travels a circular path. The radius of that path is twice either coin's radius. Hence, the circumferenc
    1 point
  16. That's become painfully obvious. What science education is coming to that we get something like Brad thinking he's being scientific. Also: Greenhouse gases don't "impede" energy transfer. They act by re-radiation, not by interfering with convection. Also: MSK, I think that TMJ was being facetious. Ellen
    1 point
  17. The original MSK classic, along with my addition of Brad at the end: Enter Brad: "I apologize for my waiter’s temper, sir. Hi. I’m Brad. I’m the owner and cook here. Now, if I overheard correctly, you would like an ice cream cone. Is that correct? Yes? Well, I don’t want to go though the trouble of making one for you, only to then discover that I’ve wasted my time because it’s not what you really want. So, let’s first explore any grounds for disagreement that we might have. Please answer this question: Octopus is the primary ingredient in Tasty Steamed Octopus, yes o
    1 point
  18. You said that someone mentioned to you the next ice age has been put on hold. I agreed with that statement, trying to give a bit of insight as to why. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Read the paper if you are still confused: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494
    1 point
  19. I'm trying to start at the beginning so we can pinpoint a specific disagreement. And I've already stated, I'm not going to attempt to address all at once as it would be pointless. But thanks for acting as if I hadn't already stated that.
    1 point
  20. I'll answer one at a time, there's no need to spam answers to all your questions if you won't accept a single answer. So again, falsifiable predictions, I've given a list, it has the years they were made. Are you still questioning this?
    1 point
  21. From 'Big Think': Original essay at PaulGraham.com: How to Disagree.
    1 point
  22. Jon, No he isn't. Who has he convinced so far? Or who has he silenced? People who already agree with him? That's being inept at propaganda. I like the pretty pictures, though. Michael
    1 point
  23. "We" didn't put any "heat" into the oceans. --Brant ". . . here comes the sun . . . ."
    1 point
  24. Whoever or whatever "Q" is, he or she or they are probably enjoying the break, not having posted since December 29 2019. This break has had zero effect on propagation of the 'cleaned-up' version of the mighty conspiracy-of-all-conspiracies ... from Mike Rothschild: The article is here. As "Q" might say, The 'silent' war continues.
    1 point
  25. 1 point
  26. William, I hate to see Milo like that. He needs to get his sass back and come out swinging. I hope he does, but I don't know where his head is at right now. My biggest fear for him is if he turned to drugs or something like that. As to the event itself, I don't know anything about it other than what I saw in these tweets. It seems like celebrity gossip dressed up as more than it is. Michael
    1 point
  27. William, PP is as good as any. Look at my paraphrase of a few of his (or her) comments. That while there are parents who willingly sell their children to the scientism and socialist indoctrination of modern education. It's more likely the teachers, nurses, and others who care for your children are there to turn them into willing thralls for the globalist manmade global warming power mongers. . . . Imagine living in this kind of fear. That a great evil hung over you like a cloud that will soon be destroyed along with the planet. That at any moment evil forces would be there
    1 point
  28. Can anyone demonstrate this (icon remains) happening? Or give an example? If so, please do so. This is, as they say, false -- a false allegation. Following will be three tweets that I will have posted to test the "Icon Remains" claim/hypothesis -- while other active members may perhaps fork up supporting warrants. I will leave them up for an hour, then delete them ... to see what kind of remnant is retained once they disappear from Twitter. Members, feel free to do your own experiments here with tweets that are subsequently deleted via your Twitter account. I don't know if
    1 point
  29. Freshly published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, Elizabeth Loftus, Steven Jay Lynn and Scott O Lilienfeld are joined with several other authors for "The Return of the Repressed: The Persistent and Problematic Claims of Long-Forgotten Trauma.' Full text PDF is unlocked at the Sage site.
    1 point
  30. Michael, OK, we weren't on the same "religionist"-meaning wavelength. I definitely see William as scientistic. Very much so, and I've seen him that way practically from my earliest acquaintance with his posts on the old SoloHQ. I think that he gets major self-esteem boost from considering himself fighting for Science-Good against Religion-Bad. And he constantly preaches scientism in his indirect fashion. So, agreed about his being religionist in the sense you've been meaning. All the same, scientistic as I think William is, I nonetheless don't see him believing specifica
    1 point
  31. There is no such thing as a “Q rally,” Q has called for no rallies. Are those Antifa pretending to be sincerely interested in Q? I have never heard of any of these clowns you hold up, Billy. It looks like bullshit to me. All of it. Try again.
    1 point
  32. I think you're right. Billy doesn't get it, and can't get it. It's like Merlin and Tony not having the ability to grasp Aristotle's Wheel, and Bob not having the ability to grasp the Polar Travel Puzzle. Cognitive limitations. J
    1 point
  33. One of these things is quite like the other ... Epistemologists are standing by to take your calls.
    1 point
  34. We need to take action now. And by "we," I mean Others™. In the short mean time, Billy, I know that you're not going to (can't) answer any of my previous questions about "the science" (tee hee hee), but might you have enough intellectual curiosity to offer up some thoughts on what "the science" should consist of? What are the ground rules? What is the methodology? Can you give some idea of how you think it should work, and maybe show that proposed method successfully applied to phenomena other than or in addition to climate? No? More steamed octopus? M-Kay. J
    1 point
  35. Jonathan, I heard from lefties that President Trump is so much against science, he wants to fire the NASA scientists and do his moonshot and 5G stuff through prayer. Michael
    1 point
  36. Jon, Because you don't win culture wars with bans. I'm playing the long game. You seem to prefer short term gratification. I won't be doing any podcasts with any leftie authoritarians, though. They went for the short term gratification and bans (social media and elsewhere). Now they're losing the culture war big time as they sell out to crony corporations just to stay relevant and they are too hate-filled to see it. Once their idiocy stops making money and/or power for the elitist establishment, they will go the way of Avenatti. Slower than him, granted, but the path is the
    1 point
  37. C'mon. What else is he gonna call it? My blog/Your blog? My Notablog? --Brant
    1 point
  38. How integral or statistically significant is the albedo value to the overall maths or modeling? The first link you provided describes cloud formation predictions as a ‘wildcard’, what was the albedo value in the 2500 yr span that you have compared to the post industrial span and consequent temperature ‘spike(s)’ and if indeterminate, does any of that affect your confidence in predictions?
    1 point
  39. What Brad is doing is trying to bog down the discussion by overwhelming it with minutiae. The game is that we asked for repeatable, so Brad is going to pretend to not understand the context, and give all sorts of examples of repeatable in regard to noncontroversial pieces of the puzzle, while hoping that we didn't notice that he switched to talking about pieces when we were specifically asking for repeatable entire picture. It's like someone saying that granite floats on air. You ask for proof via repeatable experiments, and douchebag then goes into the repeatable science of the mineralog
    1 point
  40. Godwin's Law is not a law of physics nor a true counter argument to anything without an add on explanation. --Brant
    1 point
  41. It's a natural reaction to the Meatpuppet strategy, and less distasteful and cowardly. J
    1 point
  42. Canada, the UK, Billyboy, they never had a problem swapping cash for weapons of mass death with the regime. Now that Trump has eliminated “here, Barry, the list of your new cabinet” binTalal, and nurtured new, far less evil leadership, Now they all have ethics and their eyes are wide open. They can all go to hell. No one is impressed.
    1 point
  43. Fun with recursion ... emphases added. Narcissism, definitions, utility, questions, cautions ... [...] I should mention that I have thought that the evident or non-evident, obvious or obviously wrong notions around Trump's alleged narcissism are ... almost besides the point. Besides the point because, to my eyes, whatever the obstacles to a narcissist taking political power, there are leg-ups over a non-narcissist. In other words, narcissism, or a small measure of it, can help a person navigate the procedure of getting elected to power. More on that later. I should giv
    1 point
  44. I'm going to have to insist you answer my first question: Is it the responsibility of an employer to ensure the economic stability/status of its employees? Yes, no, maybe, sometimes?
    1 point
  45. Yup. A little revision is in order. Those interested should hear the full lecture below from Branden to get on board with "a volitional consciousness". First hear, comprehend and then discount it and ignore it all you like, afaic. I recommend this especially to those who think they know it well, everyone's prone to forgetfulness, perhaps giving them a fresh perspective - most of those of skeptical mindsets will go on doing what they do best and can't do otherwise...
    1 point
  46. I looked for a minute and a half at the video and I can only take so much smarmy gotcha tone. So I stopped. Ayn Rand once said to not examine a folly. Only look at what it accomplishes. The folly I keep seeing about chemtrails goes something like this in the subtext: Sure, you can throw shit out of an airplane on top of people's heads for nefarious reasons, but our elites would never do that. Whoever even imagines our elites would do something like that is wacko. All the rest is arguing over semantics and playing gotcha to show just how wacko a questioner is. And that
    1 point
  47. I saw this panel discussion in person. About 24 hours later the CEO of ARI said that there were already 130,000 views of it on You Tube. I may comment on it later.
    1 point