Popular Content

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

  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
    Sunny Lohmann hosts a podcast featuring Ed Powell and Ed Mazlish: youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 2 points
  8. 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.
  9. 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/
  10. 2 points
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 2 points
    The perjury trap ...
  14. 2 points
  15. 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?
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 1 point
    Can you perhaps point to a specific moment when this idea of "equality before God" became important in Christian thought? Because for most of Christianity's history, the religion was considered to be perfectly consistent with absolute monarchy. Christian theology was used to justify the Divine Right Of Kings. Where would you suggest the "turning point" is?
  19. 1 point
  20. 1 point
    Final days of Seth Rich conspiracy peddling? Kevin Poulsen has a different perspective, based on the Mueller Report itself: Mueller Report: Assange Smeared Seth Rich to Cover for Russians Julian Assange repeatedly blamed Seth Rich, the murdered DNC staffer, for Russia’s leaks. The Mueller report shows that Assange was lying from the start. Exclusive: The true origins of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. A Yahoo News investigation.
  21. 1 point
    And you know coooos, Frenchy? How do you know coooos? You do know drunken gutter English, Jon. Poor soul has lost his way.
  22. 1 point
    With all due respect, bullshit. The reality is you were born at the exact right time to be here now. I get you that the world is awful at times and people are a mess. But if you wallow in defeatism because of them, who won? You? Hell no. Snap out of that shit. You have a world to win. Or feel sorry for yourself and leave it to them. Your choice and your life. You won't get another so you can change your mind after it's gone. If you don't value yourself, nobody else will except those who pity you. Michael
  23. 1 point
    Jon, The new message on the "Site down" page doesn't sound much like him, either. And if it is him, it sounds coerced or dictated by someone else. I don't think anyone is holding him in a room or something like that, but I do think there are government people telling him he will not be allowed to keep his site online, and I believe they might be threatening him with jail time. This is speculation, but it sounds about right to me. btw - There never used to be any such drivel as a Solo pledge like the one above. Not that I remember. Here are the two texts that he Perigo used for this kind of message (I got them off older copies of the site.) And this: I can't believe I am defending Lindsay fucking Perigo, but life is weird at times. And this is a time for principle. Michael
  24. 1 point
    While we're asking stuff, I ask you to get a thorough psychiatric evaluation, and if you don't do it, I might call you such terrible names that you will go mad with terror and turn into a raving liberal. (Such are the heights of rational discourse on OL these days, apparently).
  25. 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
  26. 1 point
    Blah, small potatoes. Tony was experimenting with ideas of Darrell's cones and funnels mimicking a large wheel and small wheel. Weeks ago. Of course the first thing to do is to level the ends.
  27. 1 point
    We did say that the circumference of the small circle slides or slips in relationship to the track. The small circle is not doing a true roll on the track. This is not to say that the small wheel slips in relationship to the surrounding figure. Nor is it to say that the small wheel's circumference is extended (your latest incorrect attribution). Ellen
  28. 1 point
    Sure, soon as Jon learns to stfu.
  29. 1 point
    Hi Jon, Perhaps I was too hasty since I haven't been reading all the posts on OL, but I just noticed that some people are quick to engage in name calling. I'm not an absolutist when it comes to being polite. If someone is being flagrantly rude and disparaging, I'll sometimes get down in the gutter and engage in a little tit-for-tat. However, I generally dislike being impolite just because someone else doesn't seem to understand something, frustration notwithstanding. Cheers, Darrell
  30. 1 point
    There is no straw-man KorbenKeatingShit-For-Brains cannot cut down.
  31. 1 point
    Oh, now you reply to me! Too funny. Look Tony, whenever I go too fast on my motorcycle, the inner circles go slower than the rest of the wheels. When I slow down, they catch up. Reality. Try it and you’ll see.
  32. 1 point
    I usually give them 5 bucks at Christmas time as I walk into Walmart. I will reconsider giving them nothing. Sometimes the person ringing the bell is someone local who I know.
  33. 1 point
    LOL... Perfect: Michael
  34. 1 point
    William, You once said you wanted a recent example of a false flag. Well, you're looking at it. Unfortunately, this is a false flag made by idiots who can't even shoot straight and, what's worse, it's a Hail Mary pass to get media attention to bump some lame-ass stuff damaging to the Democrats off prime time instead of hiding an actual dastardly deed, but there it is. Friggin' amateurs... In the same vein, there's a highly racist robocall going around in Florida aimed at Gillum. It's attributed to one eminent group called "Road to Power" in Idaho that's supposedly a white supremacist group. I listened to part of their recent podcast (on Bitchute) to see what they were about and this is another staged bullshit fake-out. The guy started preaching that we need to abolish freedom of the press and put the all the press under government control. The problem is, white power people just don't talk like that. Friggin' amateurs... This shit is not even worth debunking. Everybody sees what's going on. I hope they enjoy their Blue Wave bye-bye... Michael
  35. 1 point
    Lindsay Lohan meets reality, what a metaphor for the US One of the problems when you live-stream stuff is that others record it. Look what happens when a famous true-believer social justice warrior goes out into reality to demand that the world obey her because of her feelings. She gets smacked, smacked hard, and it scares her. Mother of two punches Lindsay Lohan over 'child abduction' bid As I understand the story, Lohan was in Moscow and met a Syrian refugee family out on the streets (they appear to be homeless). She offered to take them to a hotel and house them so they could watch movies and other cool stuff. The parents did not want to accept her hospitality, especially for their kids, and walked away from her, taking the kids with them. Lohan followed recording live and did what any self-respecting social justice warrior does. She accused the people who didn't agree with her (the parents) of being evil. She said they were subjecting their kids to human trafficking and ruining the Arab culture. When she tried to grab the hand of one of the kids, the mother hauled off and whopped her a good one. This is kinda like what the elitist lefties have done to the American education system. Except they actually did get their nasty mitts on the kids. But the parents woke up and the elitist lefties are stunned that the parents are whopping them a good one, especially in politics right now. But not just politics. The cultural backlash is in overdrive, too. The elitist ring-leaders know what they are doing, so they expect this, but I hope their true-believing useful idiot progeny are as scared as Lindsay Lohan was. It's a great wake-up call to meet reality for the first time, get whopped hard, and survive it. It's the start of growing up into adulthood. Michael
  36. 1 point
    Horrible. So, no. But take out the figure, yes. ---Brant just an opinion
  37. 1 point
    Is it technically bullying for a person to strike back at bullies? When targets of bullying throw it back in the bullies faces, it's a big shock? They're not supposed to do that? That's the attitude that the old ladies in this clip had. They expect that others will not behave as they do. Why, it's unconscionable! Jones is becoming more and more entertaining. J
  38. 1 point
    Jerry, If the government does not have a right to censor Alex Jones, then YouTube definitely does not have that right. It--and especially its parent company Alphabet--is a private company on paper only. I would agree with Brook if these social media giants were not so deeply in bed with the government. For an easy example, they were weaponized by the US government during the Arab Spring. These companies gave up being private a long time ago. Michael
  39. 1 point
    William, Here are the notes (modified) I put together for myself a couple of months ago. I am using the first video in your post (https://www.bitchute.com/video/fiBC7fSUZ80/). You have to use "source view" in your post to do this. I suggest putting the HTML5 video code in between paragraph tags like below: <p>put HTML5 video code here</p> For the instructions below, a magnet link is a direct torrent link. You get the magnet link at the "U" icon on the bottom right of the BitChute video player on the BitChute site. Right click it and select "Copy Link Address" or whatever means that on the browser you use. I bolded and increased the seed url for clarity. In the HTML5 video code, you can change the size if you like. It's convoluted right now, but I expect BitChute will get better over time and will have an easier procedure. Michael
  40. 1 point
    I love the way that Billy's laugh wrinkles his nose. J
  41. 1 point
    According to Brook they lost a big donor. Rumor is they axes 15 of 50 employees a couple weeks ago.
  42. 1 point
    That makes sense. People want something that others have produced. They want it for free, so therefore need to convince others, and possibly also themselves, that they deserve to take it with force (preferably with the government doing it for them) -- they need to promote the idea that they are morally justified. Therefore those from whom they want to take something have to be cast as villains. The hatred part of it is a facade, or a byproduct. It's not the core issue or cause. J
  43. 1 point
    Jules, I've been working on learning how to draw, starting with owls. Here's one method I've been studying, but it's taking time for some damn reason. Michael
  44. 1 point
    Peterson is not an Objectivist, if anyone still thinks that he is, or is Objectiv-ish, this video should prove that he is not. His premise is flawed here, it is based off a conditional that if you are moral, then you believe in god (implicitly/explicitly). Perhaps he is using the modality if you are moral then you must believe in god. I'm not sure what his logic is behind this. Perhaps he's going the neuroscience route and saying we all have a "god center" in the brain (god helmet stuff). I don't know, but what I do know is I can be categorized as an atheist, I am moral, and I know that I don't believe in god.
  45. 1 point
    I certify that it is impossible to know a woman after five minutes, five years, or five decades. They have movable parts.
  46. 1 point
    Not. Gonna. Stop. Former President George H.W. Bush in intensive care https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/politics/george-hw-bush/index.html
  47. 1 point
    It means that President Trump is going to leave a light on for Comey, at gitmo. And that Mueller will be making an important announcement next week. Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump James Comey illegally leaked classified documents to the press in order to generate a Special Council? Therefore, the Special Council was established based on an illegal act? Really, does everybody know what that means? 9:13 PM · Apr 20, 2018
  48. 1 point
    I think that's just a matter of definition. As I said before: a paradox is an argument that leads to an apparent contradiction. The contradiction doesn't exist in reality, so there must be some error in the argument. One can solve the paradox by showing were the error in the argument lies. The bad argument, i.e. the paradox, doesn't disappear in my opinion, it has only been shown what was wrong in the argument Well-known paradoxes are for example those special-relativity paradoxes, such as the barn-pole paradox, which seem to imply contradictions in reality, by incorrectly supposing that simultaneity is an invariant. There is no contradiction, but the paradox does exist and is well-known. I think the quibble is about the distinction between a paradox and a contradiction.
  49. 1 point
    Lets say that there was no fraud at GGC. Lets say that everything was on the level and that the investors got exactly what they wanted and people were living there now and more were pouring in. Since it has been pointed out in this thread that Chile, including that area, has governmental restrictions, and permits, and taxes, etc how would it be any different than a wealthy enclave anywhere else in the world. What I mean it that to be defined as Galts Gulch, to me, means that the people who go to live there don't come out (at least until something drastic changes in the rest of the world) but if the residents are coming and going then it is simply second home or a vacation spot or a place of retirement. It's like science--something can only become valid if it is able to be proven wrong/false and yet it withstands such scrutiny. So what would be failure for a place like this--to prove its Galt's Gulch status? I'm thinking that it would be a failure if people come and go. Which also means that it wouldn't be a success (even if there were no fraud) just because it was open for business and people lived there. That would only make it a new subdivision... ps I loved the theme song : )
  50. 1 point
    As I said over on the five-minute phobia thread, you are using stolen concepts here. If empirical studies are as unreliable as you say, I have to wonder what you would consider good evidence and why that is better. How you would prove such a claim without empirical evidence is beyond me. In any case I did not say that controlled studies are "the only way" to gather information. In the passage you quoted I expressly mentioned that testimonials (about sentence-completion, for example) could be of some value. Speaking from an amateur literacy in the field, I should think that a good followup would include standardized tests, self-reports and interviews with duly blinded investigators, and maybe other techniques as well. As a matter of fact I've read several of Branden's books. The theoretical part was impressive. The exercises struck me the same way folk-dancing does: harmless fun if you're into it, but not for me.