• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jonathan

  1. Yeah, Orange Man and MSK bad. Gramps, do you have any insights as to why Trump has changed his position? Or is it just Gotcha-MSK? J
  2. Okie dokie. Still no answers to my questions. Still no demonstration of the scientific method being followed. Still no details of the terms and conditions of a single hypothesis and its predictions, falsifiability, testing, results, and conclusions. Instead od wasting his time answering my questions, Brad put his efforts toward what he thinks is better use of time: inventing grounds to believe that I'm lacking in understanding the subject or completely dishonest. There! That showed me! And, yet, still no answers. One nice thing about Brad's return visit is that he did I demonstrate the importance of my unanswered questions by trying to take two separate positions at the same time, thus eliminating falsifiability, and therefore turning his positions into pseudoscience. Send someone who is competent, Billy. Tee hee hee! J
  3. Is that part of the scientific method? "I'm not going to present any details of the term and conditions of the hypothesis and its predictions and testing until any potential reviewers or critics answer questions that I've come up with!" hahaha!!! Youre missing a few options. Which is not surprising. J
  4. 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 or no? J
  5. It's familiar to me. Why are you throwing my words in MSK's face? Are you confusing the two of us, gramps? J
  6. So, anyway, clearly Billy’s savior has nothing. Do you have anyone better, Billy? C’mon. There has to be someone who will actually try to answer the questions instead of running away from them, someone bright enough to come up with something other the stupidity of believing that we’re going to fall for the Tasty Stramed Octopus menu substitution. You can’t all be that incompetent. Seriously, Billy, bring someone with a brain. J
  7. I'm not interested in that type of exchange and distraction from my questions. Im not interested in your ploys to avoid my questions and substitute them with your method of controlling the conversation so that my question can be dodged. During your first appearance here, you claimed that the questions could be answered easily. Not so anymore. So more Tasty Steamed Octopus it is! J
  8. In other words, it's a test. You're testing whether or not there is agreement. Which means you're testing whether or not I'm worthy of having my questions answered. You're trying to make it about me. You're doing so because you have nothing. You can't answer the questions, and you don't want to try because the actual answers don't back up your opinions. Answering the questions would box you in, and take away your means of deception. J
  9. I'm not going to play your games. No, it's not requisite. Your attempts to test me, and determine that I'm not up to speed and that I'm a lesser being and therefore unworthy of having my questions answered, is nothing but a distraction. My questions cut through all of the bullshit. They simply and clearly represent the requirements of the scientific method. That's all that is requisite. Why are you so upset by the scientific method, and so resistant to its requirements? Why are you working so hard to find away around it? Bullshit. You don't have the answers. And you're not even interested in looking for them. You resent the questions, and want them to go away. In contrast to the precision that they require, you prefer lots of slither room, and the ability to hold several contradictory positions at the same time, to cherry pick, and to lie and pretend. You're nothing but copouts and bullshit. J
  10. Well, it looks like Snuggletits decided to fuck off rather than deliver "the science,'" (tee hee hee). My, what lengths these superior beings go to avoid taking and defining a position! J
  11. Popey is back to preaching coveting and stealing.
  12. True, but he does argue that the imaginary people who live in his head, including the imaginary me, argue that up is down, and that they got the notion from Kant's aesthetics, 'cuz Rand said so. J
  13. The above his actually worse than trying to follow the nutty inferences that Tony makes. I didn't think it possible that there could be someone even more wrongheaded than Tony. Congratulations, Tony, Brad has outTonyed you! Damn, I wonder what the straw man version of me who lives in Tony's head thinks of that! J
  14. I'm reposting the above quote because I want to make sure that everyone catches the significance of it. First, as I mentioned earlier, Brad is not going with a single answer here, but with more than one, and perhaps leaving the door open for several. It leaves Brad room to slither, but it also inadvertently reveals disagreement among whomever Brad thinks he's citing. They can't even settle amongst themselves on what they think that the temperature would be without mankind's input. Second, it's a demonstration of the absence of falsifiability and of well-defined terms and conditions prior to testing. Any and all possible outcomes could be taken as proof of any hypothesis, and no possible outcome could falsify it, since whatever outcome happens, Brad and his sources will say that, no, no, no, right now the cooling is supposed to be much, much greater, even greater than we had originally thought, so the global cooling that we're seeing is actually 7 degrees warmer than it should be due to mankind's production of co2! Thanks for returning, Brad, and delivering this demonstration of technique. J
  15. That's right, dumbass! Did you read the posts where I've told you that I'm not going to play your games? Yeah? But that fact still hasn't sunken in? Still not grasping it? J
  16. I didn't "buck" at all. I asked you to define your terms. No, that's not what you're doing. You're asking questions about what I think. Game playing. You were asked to define your terms, and instead turned it into a question of what I think. Slither, slither, slither. I'm not going to play. Answer the questions, or fuck off. Heh. You've already invested much more time slithering than it would have taken to answer the questions. J
  17. Asshole, how to many times do you have to be told? Answer my questions, or fuck off. I’m not doing it your way. I’m not going to play your games.
  18. Considered by whom? And which one is it? 100%, or more than 100%? They both can’t be right. Which one is the “settled science”? See, you’re switching between hypotheses at will. This is why we need you to answer the questions and limit yourself to a non contradictory position, to define the terms and conditions minus all of the slither room that you’re trying to leave for yourself. J
  19. Bullshit. I’ve given no indication that I’m closed minded and would refuse to consider answers to my questions. Your false assumptions aren’t warranted, and are a copout. It really is amusing how upsetting my insistence on following the scientific method is to you, and the shit that you’ll invent in order to excuse yourself from complying with it. I’ve simply been asking that you demonstrate conformity to the scientific method. It doesn’t surprise me that you’re having trouble parsing it. J
  20. How have you concluded that it would be pointless? By assigning to me traits that I don't possess? Long ago, Billy asked what it would take to change one's mind. I answered. I identified what it would take. Like you, Billy doesnt like my answer. After hearing it, he decided that he wanted to convince me to accept a different method of changing my mind. What is actually pointless is your constant attempted workarounds, and your shitty projections of yourself on to me (or us). Fuck you and your excuses and your baseless presumptions about what would or would not be "pointless." J
  21. Yeah, thanks. I know that everything must be taken with a grain of salt with this dude. Conversationally, I'm willing to momentarily entertain, for the sake of argument, some of Brad's assertions or sources, but I am aware that in the event that if he ever does attempt to answer my question, I'll have to go over his answers with a fine tooth comb. His game is what can he sneak past 'em.
  22. Define "driving up." Or better yet, just answer the questions instead of working so hard to avoid them. How is it not clear to you yet that I'm not going to settle for your attempts at a workaround? Which single hypothesis, and it's resulting predictions and testing, do you want to discuss? That mankinds activities are responsible for 1.6 percent of warming that has been reported? Or 32 percent. Or 68? 97? Or that mankind's contributions are causing a catastrophe, an existential threat? The Statue of Liberty will be up to her chin in ocean by 2004 2028? Sharknadoes galore? What? All that I'm asking for is that you define your terms and to then stick to them, instead of pulling all of the slippery shit of shifting between different hypotheses, predictions, cooditions of falsifiability, etc.