You must be getting bored, you're losing your edge man.
I am. You're quite the drag. I feel sorry for anyone who has to actually interact with you on a regular basis.
BTW, I think Obama will go down as one of the best presidents in history, as soon as a generation of stupid people die off and humanity forgets that they spent years looking for a magical birth certificate that could prove what a real birth certificate couldn't. You're probably one of those people, right?
No, actually. I think those birther folks are just as stupid as the "OMG OBAMA == BEST PREZ EVAH" crowd, namely for their blatant disregard for the obvious.
Admittedly, he's not perfect though, and you're right about the persecution of whistleblower part.
Seems appropriate to end this on an off-topic post... Obama's a douche. As-big-if-not-bigger-than his predecessor. They [by which I mean 99% of all politicians] can go fuck themselves, and take their greedy corporate masters with them.
Dammit, bitching 'bout the gobbermint has totally killed my desire to continue this verbal war of attrition with you...
Whatever happened to "Hey, dude, guess you're right, thanks for clarifying?"
Because you are wrong. The page you linked to is all about the OGI - it ends with him specificlly directing the CTO and the OMB to create the OGI, and he kept that promise. You can't accuse the guy of flip-flopping on a promise he actually kept.
The only reason you think the crappy handling of the whistleblowers is a flip-flop is because you bought into the overly broad scope of the original misquote which, given the use on all the anti-obama websites, was probably designed specificly to mislead like that.
Whatever you've got to tell yourself to sleep at night, bro, I really don't give a rat's ass whether you acknowledge reality or not.
you're an incompetent asshole bully with a chip on their shoulder. Sorry for the mixup, incompetent asshole bully person.
Kettle, meet pot. You're not as Jesus-like as you probably want to believe.
Ooh, how creative, repeating what I said back to me. My 3 year old nephew would be impressed.
zero risk
I don't remember saying zero risk. I might have said insignificant risk, but that's a little different, and we are to the point where the terminology will confuse you, and you're back to making stuff up.
No you said:
Please stop completely making shit up... It's simply embarassing to be so completely wrong about something so easily checked...
Which kinda implies you think there's zero risk. Should have clarified further, if that's not what you meant.
Lemme guess, you're also one of those people who is convinced that a conclusive link exists between second hand smoke and cancer, right?
Nope, and you're back to making baseless claims.
That you claim it's "baseless," without doing even the slightest bit of research first, says a lot more about you than it does about me. Personally, I find it quite laughable that a person who has wasted a good portion of 2 days arguing and accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about does the exact same thing they accuse me of. Or rather, it would be laughable, if not so sadly ironic.
kiddo, run out of "rational" points to make?
You haven't made any rational points. So there's that.
... this is one of those "neener-neener-boo-boo" kind of statements, right? Sorry, but I don't really understand the logic flow of kindergartners, so this makes no sense to me.
Doesn't surprise me, you seem the type who would get winded trying to remember your own name.
Hyperbole from an internet idiot who has nothing to add to any conversation? Say it isn't so!
Looking in a mirror when you say that? You should.
You reap what you sow you comptemptible piece of shit.
Keep it coming imbreed, all of your posts are filled with high blood-pressure vitriolic inanities which you are chastising others for. You still have added nothing to the topic you started. You're a disgrace to this, and every, forum. You enjoy your high blood pressure, I know I've enjoyed increasing it for you:) Calling you an idiot seems to be the only way to get a rise out of you apparently.
Um.
Those were your words. So basically, this last little rant of yours is directed at... yourself. Something tells me that's insightful, or would be, if not for the subject at hand...
Oh, also - it's spelled i-n-b-r-e-d. inbreed is what you do to become inbred, a process I'm fairly certain you have an intimate familiarity with, yes?
Yes, I'm correcting your spelling just because I know it pisses you off.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't talking about people with science careers
More baseless insinuations? You can't help yourself can you? More name calling? BTW, chevy small blocks cause cancer. The link has been firmly established.
You know, you should probably log off and go take a cold shower - I can tell your processor is getting overworked, as your posts make less and less sense as the day goes on.
Or, you know, don't, and just keep trollin' thinking you're "getting to me" until you give yourself an aneurysm. I could give a rat's ass.
Whatever happened to "Hey, dude, guess you're right, thanks for clarifying?"
Nevermind; the point is, Obama has claimed that he intends to have a very open and transparent government, yet his administration has prosecuted orders of magnitude more whistleblowers than every previous administration combined. Regardless of how he stated his intent, it's glaringly obvious he has no intention of making good on transparency.
Never took physics (should have, would have enjoyed it)
This is the point where you ask questions regarding physics, instead of declaring knowledge. It would be like me saying that a Chevy small block has three cylinders instead of the four cylinder big block, and passing that off as absolute knowledge in a car forum, and then being dumbfounded that people react strongly to the claim. Then, I defend myself by pointing out their behavior is not perfect, and the they maybe misspelled a word, all the while not addressing the original claim. This is exactly what you are doing!
Except A) I never presented myself as an authority on the topic (if you honestly believe everyone who posts something on an online forum considerst themselves an expert, you're far more conceited than I previously thought), and B) the only reason I would feel compelled to "defend myself" would probably because your initial response to my (allegedly) incorrect post was "OMFG WHAT A FUCHING MORAN YU R!" Had you responded without, you know, being a total asshat about it, I probably wouldn't feel nearly as compelled to make it my mission for the day to get you to give yourself a heart attack arguing with me. "Reap what you sow," remember?
I also like your insinuation that people with a career in the sciences never get laid, never experiment with drugs, and can't build a fast car, and don't live. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't talking about people with science careers - I really try hard to avoid such generalizing.
Obama: "Mine will be the most transparent administration in history."
I'm pretty sure that is a misquote since googling it only turns up anti-obama sites. That's poor form if you want to show something actually hypocritical and not just more fauxbama stuff.
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
You should probably do a little more research yourself, before making such accusations.
BTW, 5 seconds and one Google search is all it took to find the above quote.
Man, I really, really hope you never have any involvement in the education of children, with an attitude like that.
You see, if you had said something along the lines of "Wow, I didn't know DU was not a significant radiological hazard. Can you help me to understand this, and maybe show me how you would calculate the expected dose from ingestion or inhalation of DU?", you might actually get a good response. These are the kinds of people (children or adults - it really makes little difference) who are worth teaching.
.. and if you hadn't opened your responses with "You're a lazy idiot," perhaps I would have been more inclined to respond in such a manner.
But you didn't - you came at me, prick out, guns a' blazin', then accuse me of being the outlandish asshole. Like most humans, I tend to take offense to that.
What I do not take offense to, however, is continuing to piss you off (because that's obviously what's happening, and BTW, I'm lovin' it) for as long as you continue to make pointless personal attacks.
You said depleted uranium causes people to die of radiation poisoning.
Okay, so I used the wrong terminology - sue me. It's not really what I would consider a good reason to give yourself a coronary arguing with me about it.
You have to provide the evidence for that - you are making the claim.
Again, I pray you don't teach. You would suck at it, obviously.
Little Johnny: "Teacher, I heard that sexually frustrated trolls spend entirely too much of their time online attacking other people for having different worldviews."
You, as 'Teacher': You're a fucking moron, Johnny, go fucking die somewhere.
Or something like that.
You're right though, you're a waste of my tyme. That's right tyme -- you can point out that I misspelled it so that you can have some pretense for feeling enlightened, while making up bullshit and passing it off as knowledge.
I just figured you were British; now I know, you're an incompetent asshole bully with a chip on their shoulder. Sorry for the mixup, incompetent asshole bully person.
You are spreading misinformation, providing no sources, making up shit, and then chastising other people is your only recourse.
Hi, Pot, I'm Kettle! Nice to make your acquaintance!
Seriously, though - Remove plank, then bitch about mote. Or not; I don't really care.
From the wikipedia article, under the heading "Radiological Hazards" Available evidence suggests that this risk is small relative to the chemical hazard.
"Available evidence suggests that this risk is small relative to the chemical hazard" does not, to anyone who, you know, thinks, equate to "zero risk." Lemme guess, you're also one of those people who is convinced that a conclusive link exists between second hand smoke and cancer, right?
Apparently you'd make just as shitty a researcher as you would a teacher. You do make a pretty good internet troll, though; I like to give credit where it's due.
There's even a source for that, hence my, and everybody elses point that the chemical toxicity is more problematic than the radiological toxicity, hence your assertion that people are dying of radiation poisoning is asinine.
So, because "chemical toxicity risk" > "radiological toxicity risk", "radiological toxicity risk" == 0? I readily admit math is my weakest subject, but even I can tell that equation doesn't make a lick of sense.
Can you connect the dots on that one, you stupid cunt? I'm calling you a stupid cunt, because calling you names and calling you an idiot seems to be the only thing that actaully gets you involved in the conversation in any way.
Aww, how cute, it's back to ad hominems! Wassamatta, kiddo, run out of "rational" points to make? Doesn't surprise me, you seem the type who would get winded trying to remember your own name.
You reap what you sow you comptemptible piece of shit.
Yes, you most certainly do.
Enjoy your high blood pressure, fuckwit. I know I've enjoyed increasing it for you:)
No, I will not do your homework assignment. This isn't some eclectic bit of knowledge that I'm claiming I'm smart for knowing, but won't share my secret with anyone else. This is high school physics. Radiation danger depnds on many things, but it's always proportional to decay events per second, or mass over half-life.
Never took physics (should have, would have enjoyed it); it wasn't a required course for graduation, and I was too busy getting laid, experimenting with drugs, and building fast-ass muscle cars. In other words, living. Not to mention, as I don't have need for that sort of knowledge on a day-to-day basis, my dendrites that form said knowledge have fallen into disuse. I can still build a small block Chevy like nobody's business, though.
You have an irrational fear of "scary nukular stuff", it seems, that even a slight amount of self-education could cure
Not really - it's more a slightly-less-than-rational fear of the shit our government pulls, coupled with a general lack of giving a shit. You gotta admit, though, to a layman (which, in this case, I qualify as), the term "uranium-tipped bullets" doesn't typically conjure up the image of increased density, you know?
Are you kidding? The politicians on the right flip flop so much on every possible issue that the last thing in the world any of those networks wants is a public with a memory that goes back farther than a week.
Yea, thank goodness the politicians on the left never do that stuff, right?
Obama: "Mine will be the most transparent administration in history."
Caveat: I think they're all greedy, self-absorbed douche-bags. No bias.
You're the one making the rediculous claim that DU rounds are nuclear weapons. Provide sources for that, and don't expect other people to do your work for you.
Presumably, if they possess greater knowledge than I, they would be able to provide source information without much if any trouble, but fair enough.
FYI, it's spelled 'r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s.' Amazing your spellchecker didn't catch that.
Because some of us may be more knowledgeable than you doensn't mean we want to spend our day looking things up for some lazy idiot on the internet.
... But you're fine with spending your day arguing with said 'lazy idiot?'
Again, such behavior does not reflect well on your own intellect, Cap'n. To paraphrase a Biblical proverb, Don't fret about the mote in your neighbor's eye, whilst ignoring the plank in your own.
Perhaps now would be a good time for you to review your priorities.
You could have, if you were even mildly ambitious, read the wikipedia article that you yourself linked.
I skimmed it, and didn't catch anything that would confirm nor deny either position. Conversely, instead of being a pedantic dick about the whole thing, you could have pointed out the part in said Wiki article that disproves my contentions, but you would, apparently, rather prefer to engage in personal attacks. I would find that curious behavior, if not for it's prevalence amongst pre-adolescent children, although I guess seeing an alleged adult exhibit such childishness would be cause for attention...
The irony, of course, is that those who engage in personal attacks instead of refuting what was said typically do so because they know jack shit about the topic, but want to appear "smart" by belittling the intelligence of others.
You're a disgrace to this forum...
Yea, sorry, should have stuck to Apple vs Android pissing contests, which is obviously a far better use of time and resources, rather than attempt to, you know, learn something, right?
, and I for one am not in the business of teaching idiots.
Man, I really, really hope you never have any involvement in the education of children, with an attitude like that.
Co-Pilot: Huh, looks like some asshole is at the cabin door, threatening the passengers with a... is that a steak knife? Anyway, he seems to think that he can corral them all into the galley and take 'em out one by one, as if anyone is stupid enough to fall for that one...
Pilot: Oh, so he wants to take on the crowd? I think we can oblige... *Takes the plane into a steep climb*
Slashdot Mirror
Still funny, though.
More accurately, it /is/ an artifact. There are multiple acceptable spellings of artifact.
Ha, yea, I actually remembered that shortly after hitting the submit button. Where's a time-limited edit button when you need one?
My high school English teacher is probably spinning in her grave...
You must be getting bored, you're losing your edge man.
I am. You're quite the drag. I feel sorry for anyone who has to actually interact with you on a regular basis.
BTW, I think Obama will go down as one of the best presidents in history, as soon as a generation of stupid people die off and humanity forgets that they spent years looking for a magical birth certificate that could prove what a real birth certificate couldn't. You're probably one of those people, right?
No, actually. I think those birther folks are just as stupid as the "OMG OBAMA == BEST PREZ EVAH" crowd, namely for their blatant disregard for the obvious.
Admittedly, he's not perfect though, and you're right about the persecution of whistleblower part.
Seems appropriate to end this on an off-topic post... Obama's a douche. As-big-if-not-bigger-than his predecessor. They [by which I mean 99% of all politicians] can go fuck themselves, and take their greedy corporate masters with them.
Dammit, bitching 'bout the gobbermint has totally killed my desire to continue this verbal war of attrition with you...
fucking mutual enemies...
Whatever happened to "Hey, dude, guess you're right, thanks for clarifying?"
Because you are wrong. The page you linked to is all about the OGI - it ends with him specificlly directing the CTO and the OMB to create the OGI, and he kept that promise. You can't accuse the guy of flip-flopping on a promise he actually kept.
The only reason you think the crappy handling of the whistleblowers is a flip-flop is because you bought into the overly broad scope of the original misquote which, given the use on all the anti-obama websites, was probably designed specificly to mislead like that.
Whatever you've got to tell yourself to sleep at night, bro, I really don't give a rat's ass whether you acknowledge reality or not.
I opened with something along the lines of "DU rounds are not nuclear weapons."
.. and calling me an idiot. Twice.
Not the best way to open dialog if you're not looking to start a fight.
you're an incompetent asshole bully with a chip on their shoulder. Sorry for the mixup, incompetent asshole bully person.
Kettle, meet pot. You're not as Jesus-like as you probably want to believe.
Ooh, how creative, repeating what I said back to me. My 3 year old nephew would be impressed.
zero risk
I don't remember saying zero risk. I might have said insignificant risk, but that's a little different, and we are to the point where the terminology will confuse you, and you're back to making stuff up.
No you said:
Which kinda implies you think there's zero risk. Should have clarified further, if that's not what you meant.
Lemme guess, you're also one of those people who is convinced that a conclusive link exists between second hand smoke and cancer, right?
Nope, and you're back to making baseless claims.
That you claim it's "baseless," without doing even the slightest bit of research first, says a lot more about you than it does about me. Personally, I find it quite laughable that a person who has wasted a good portion of 2 days arguing and accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about does the exact same thing they accuse me of. Or rather, it would be laughable, if not so sadly ironic.
kiddo, run out of "rational" points to make?
You haven't made any rational points. So there's that.
... this is one of those "neener-neener-boo-boo" kind of statements, right? Sorry, but I don't really understand the logic flow of kindergartners, so this makes no sense to me.
Doesn't surprise me, you seem the type who would get winded trying to remember your own name.
Hyperbole from an internet idiot who has nothing to add to any conversation? Say it isn't so!
Looking in a mirror when you say that? You should.
You reap what you sow you comptemptible piece of shit.
Keep it coming imbreed, all of your posts are filled with high blood-pressure vitriolic inanities which you are chastising others for. You still have added nothing to the topic you started. You're a disgrace to this, and every, forum. You enjoy your high blood pressure, I know I've enjoyed increasing it for you:) Calling you an idiot seems to be the only way to get a rise out of you apparently.
Um.
Those were your words. So basically, this last little rant of yours is directed at... yourself. Something tells me that's insightful, or would be, if not for the subject at hand...
Oh, also - it's spelled i-n-b-r-e-d. inbreed is what you do to become inbred, a process I'm fairly certain you have an intimate familiarity with, yes?
Yes, I'm correcting your spelling just because I know it pisses you off.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't talking about people with science careers
More baseless insinuations? You can't help yourself can you? More name calling? BTW, chevy small blocks cause cancer. The link has been firmly established.
You know, you should probably log off and go take a cold shower - I can tell your processor is getting overworked, as your posts make less and less sense as the day goes on.
Or, you know, don't, and just keep trollin' thinking you're "getting to me" until you give yourself an aneurysm. I could give a rat's ass.
Nice try, chump. And by "nice," I of course mean pathetic.
They call it "package on package".
Would Google for specs, but afraid of getting gay porn by mistake...
Whatever happened to "Hey, dude, guess you're right, thanks for clarifying?"
Nevermind; the point is, Obama has claimed that he intends to have a very open and transparent government, yet his administration has prosecuted orders of magnitude more whistleblowers than every previous administration combined. Regardless of how he stated his intent, it's glaringly obvious he has no intention of making good on transparency.
^ courtesy xkcd forums
- Right click the comic, select "Inspect Element"
- in the console, expand the "middleContainer" div
- select the "comic" div
- in the box on the right of the console, uncheck "overflow:hidden"
WTF is an "artefact"?
It's very similar to an artifact, except artefacts are only found by people who don't know what the little red, squiggly line under the word is for.
Never took physics (should have, would have enjoyed it)
This is the point where you ask questions regarding physics, instead of declaring knowledge. It would be like me saying that a Chevy small block has three cylinders instead of the four cylinder big block, and passing that off as absolute knowledge in a car forum, and then being dumbfounded that people react strongly to the claim. Then, I defend myself by pointing out their behavior is not perfect, and the they maybe misspelled a word, all the while not addressing the original claim. This is exactly what you are doing!
Except A) I never presented myself as an authority on the topic (if you honestly believe everyone who posts something on an online forum considerst themselves an expert, you're far more conceited than I previously thought), and B) the only reason I would feel compelled to "defend myself" would probably because your initial response to my (allegedly) incorrect post was "OMFG WHAT A FUCHING MORAN YU R!" Had you responded without, you know, being a total asshat about it, I probably wouldn't feel nearly as compelled to make it my mission for the day to get you to give yourself a heart attack arguing with me. "Reap what you sow," remember?
I also like your insinuation that people with a career in the sciences never get laid, never experiment with drugs, and can't build a fast car, and don't live. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't talking about people with science careers - I really try hard to avoid such generalizing.
No, Colonel Dickberry, I was talking about you.
Obama: "Mine will be the most transparent administration in history."
I'm pretty sure that is a misquote since googling it only turns up anti-obama sites. That's poor form if you want to show something actually hypocritical and not just more fauxbama stuff.
From whitehouse.gov:
You should probably do a little more research yourself, before making such accusations.
BTW, 5 seconds and one Google search is all it took to find the above quote.
Man, I really, really hope you never have any involvement in the education of children, with an attitude like that.
You see, if you had said something along the lines of "Wow, I didn't know DU was not a significant radiological hazard. Can you help me to understand this, and maybe show me how you would calculate the expected dose from ingestion or inhalation of DU?", you might actually get a good response. These are the kinds of people (children or adults - it really makes little difference) who are worth teaching.
.. and if you hadn't opened your responses with "You're a lazy idiot," perhaps I would have been more inclined to respond in such a manner.
But you didn't - you came at me, prick out, guns a' blazin', then accuse me of being the outlandish asshole. Like most humans, I tend to take offense to that.
What I do not take offense to, however, is continuing to piss you off (because that's obviously what's happening, and BTW, I'm lovin' it) for as long as you continue to make pointless personal attacks.
Or until I get bored, whichever comes first.
You said depleted uranium causes people to die of radiation poisoning.
Okay, so I used the wrong terminology - sue me. It's not really what I would consider a good reason to give yourself a coronary arguing with me about it.
You have to provide the evidence for that - you are making the claim.
Again, I pray you don't teach. You would suck at it, obviously.
Or something like that.
You're right though, you're a waste of my tyme. That's right tyme -- you can point out that I misspelled it so that you can have some pretense for feeling enlightened, while making up bullshit and passing it off as knowledge.
I just figured you were British; now I know, you're an incompetent asshole bully with a chip on their shoulder. Sorry for the mixup, incompetent asshole bully person.
You are spreading misinformation, providing no sources, making up shit, and then chastising other people is your only recourse.
Hi, Pot, I'm Kettle! Nice to make your acquaintance!
Seriously, though - Remove plank, then bitch about mote. Or not; I don't really care.
From the wikipedia article, under the heading "Radiological Hazards" Available evidence suggests that this risk is small relative to the chemical hazard.
"Available evidence suggests that this risk is small relative to the chemical hazard" does not, to anyone who, you know, thinks, equate to "zero risk." Lemme guess, you're also one of those people who is convinced that a conclusive link exists between second hand smoke and cancer, right?
Apparently you'd make just as shitty a researcher as you would a teacher. You do make a pretty good internet troll, though; I like to give credit where it's due.
There's even a source for that, hence my, and everybody elses point that the chemical toxicity is more problematic than the radiological toxicity, hence your assertion that people are dying of radiation poisoning is asinine.
So, because "chemical toxicity risk" > "radiological toxicity risk", "radiological toxicity risk" == 0? I readily admit math is my weakest subject, but even I can tell that equation doesn't make a lick of sense.
Can you connect the dots on that one, you stupid cunt? I'm calling you a stupid cunt, because calling you names and calling you an idiot seems to be the only thing that actaully gets you involved in the conversation in any way.
Aww, how cute, it's back to ad hominems! Wassamatta, kiddo, run out of "rational" points to make? Doesn't surprise me, you seem the type who would get winded trying to remember your own name.
You reap what you sow you comptemptible piece of shit.
Yes, you most certainly do.
:)
Enjoy your high blood pressure, fuckwit. I know I've enjoyed increasing it for you
No, I will not do your homework assignment. This isn't some eclectic bit of knowledge that I'm claiming I'm smart for knowing, but won't share my secret with anyone else. This is high school physics. Radiation danger depnds on many things, but it's always proportional to decay events per second, or mass over half-life.
Never took physics (should have, would have enjoyed it); it wasn't a required course for graduation, and I was too busy getting laid, experimenting with drugs, and building fast-ass muscle cars. In other words, living. Not to mention, as I don't have need for that sort of knowledge on a day-to-day basis, my dendrites that form said knowledge have fallen into disuse. I can still build a small block Chevy like nobody's business, though.
You have an irrational fear of "scary nukular stuff", it seems, that even a slight amount of self-education could cure
Not really - it's more a slightly-less-than-rational fear of the shit our government pulls, coupled with a general lack of giving a shit. You gotta admit, though, to a layman (which, in this case, I qualify as), the term "uranium-tipped bullets" doesn't typically conjure up the image of increased density, you know?
Blame apathy and the media, I guess.
Are you kidding? The politicians on the right flip flop so much on every possible issue that the last thing in the world any of those networks wants is a public with a memory that goes back farther than a week.
Yea, thank goodness the politicians on the left never do that stuff, right?
Caveat: I think they're all greedy, self-absorbed douche-bags. No bias.
Think about it. Robocop will soon be a documentary.
Futurama, too!
Also you are very stupid for even making the comparison, though I suppose you hear that often enough.
What an adult, mature response... Sheesh...
No, no, no, it was "Abbey" something...
Abbey...
Abbey...
Abbey... Normal! Yea, that was it: "Abbey Normal!"
You're the one making the rediculous claim that DU rounds are nuclear weapons. Provide sources for that, and don't expect other people to do your work for you.
Presumably, if they possess greater knowledge than I, they would be able to provide source information without much if any trouble, but fair enough.
FYI, it's spelled 'r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s.' Amazing your spellchecker didn't catch that.
Because some of us may be more knowledgeable than you doensn't mean we want to spend our day looking things up for some lazy idiot on the internet.
... But you're fine with spending your day arguing with said 'lazy idiot?'
Again, such behavior does not reflect well on your own intellect, Cap'n. To paraphrase a Biblical proverb, Don't fret about the mote in your neighbor's eye, whilst ignoring the plank in your own.
Perhaps now would be a good time for you to review your priorities.
You could have, if you were even mildly ambitious, read the wikipedia article that you yourself linked.
I skimmed it, and didn't catch anything that would confirm nor deny either position. Conversely, instead of being a pedantic dick about the whole thing, you could have pointed out the part in said Wiki article that disproves my contentions, but you would, apparently, rather prefer to engage in personal attacks. I would find that curious behavior, if not for it's prevalence amongst pre-adolescent children, although I guess seeing an alleged adult exhibit such childishness would be cause for attention...
The irony, of course, is that those who engage in personal attacks instead of refuting what was said typically do so because they know jack shit about the topic, but want to appear "smart" by belittling the intelligence of others.
You're a disgrace to this forum...
Yea, sorry, should have stuck to Apple vs Android pissing contests, which is obviously a far better use of time and resources, rather than attempt to, you know, learn something, right?
, and I for one am not in the business of teaching idiots.
Man, I really, really hope you never have any involvement in the education of children, with an attitude like that.
Third generation will be a (recycled) latex glove and lotion. We'll stop those terrorists from hiding their weapons in places we're afraid to look!
Fourth Gen - we skip the lotion.
Heh.
Pilot: Hey, what's all that racket?
Co-Pilot: Huh, looks like some asshole is at the cabin door, threatening the passengers with a... is that a steak knife? Anyway, he seems to think that he can corral them all into the galley and take 'em out one by one, as if anyone is stupid enough to fall for that one...
Pilot: Oh, so he wants to take on the crowd? I think we can oblige... *Takes the plane into a steep climb*