If you look into the theory of chemtrails, one of the first thing you learn is that they are different from contrails. They last longer, disperse in unusual ways. It was these differences that made people look into them. There are attempts to read them using various forms of elemental analysis, with some interesting findings..
No one is quite sure why the spraying is occurring (if it is at all). In your very unscientific approach to dismissal, you posit why not just have the government make the trails invisible. You say this because you have automatically assumed it is all unreal or imaginary, without looking into this yourself. Otherwise, you would understand the chemtrails people are not claiming they government is spraying the air with imaginarium or some Avengers made up compound, but real materials with known physical properties. It would not be invisible because nothing really is..
I have not investigated chemtrails first hand. I have not run a spectrograph of one. I do not KNOW if the results are real or not. That said, I can routinely find made up results in most scientific journals, so I have a healthy dose of much of the "science" that is in play today. (As a practicing bioengineer, what I see published at times alarms me). So, I am not as fast to dismiss what is made fun of as fringe science as fast as the average reader on this forum. I believe in experiment and results, no matter where it leads. I prejudge nothing.
More to the point, in an age where we find the NSA is spying on us all, which was just a few years ago laughed at as a fringe idea by many, you would think the intelligent people who read slashdot would get past the pejoratives and take a look at things for themselves with open mind..
The phrase I believe or I remember does not require attribution, since I am the source of the information. You can choose to believe that source or not. This is rhetoric 101. I would argue if you were as clever as you feel that you are, you should understand this.
can remember a time where to be moded up, you needed to have great depth in your thought or informative support with links, or really, really clever/funny.
I humbly suggest that read and think more before knee jerk posting. The world is more complicated than you think. You think a certain way. You speak a certain way, because someone has crafted a message for you. Instead of being so vitriolic when someone suggests a counter argument or differing world view, take some time and explore.
Its really the height of irony that those who pride themselves on challenging the status quo and excepted "truth" are the last ones to ever do so when it comes to their beliefs. I mean you, gratuitously liberal slashdot poster. When something becomes an ideology, you leave the realm of rationality. This is true for religion, right wing and yes, even left wing politics.
Now, to shut down your reply. It depends on what you mean by own. Rupert Murdoch does not completely own his various media outlets, but has a controlling share. Similarly, Soros has a controlling and influential stake in many things. The difference is you turn a blind eye to later. That is a sad thing.
By name calling like a 5 year old, this makes you more correct?
By having no examples, no evidence, just emotion this is a good argument?
By attributing statements too me that I never said, this makes you intellectually honest?
Yet, this gets moded up to 3, and I get a troll. Again, modern slashdot has become a poor, disgraceful thing. Again, I still remember the heady days when it was an arena of ideas. Not a sandpit of childishness and ignorance. Be better slashdot. Be better.
This is yet another example of how the once great Slashdot has fallen. I can remember a time where to be moded up, you needed to have great depth in your thought or informative support with links, or really, really clever/funny. Now, apparently you just have to be gratuitously liberal.
Let me bite the cough, interesting troll for a second. How is Murdoch trying to destroy the US? By providing an alternative point of view than offered by the other 4 networks? That is bad why? I thought smart, informed people, like people who read this forum seem to think they are, LIKE to see differing viewpoints then weigh them. I thought smart, informed people would be against just a small group of people controlling all thought. It doesn't bother you that most media members with a near monolithic bias control what you read, see, hear? You want there to be less choice?
Or is it, you think Fox news is inherently more inaccurate. Like say, in the Trayvon Martin case where NBC altered the 911 tape to make it sound like Zimmerman said something racist, when he did not? Not to mention the other 3 letter networks biasing opinion by showing a picture of a sweeter Trayvon when he was younger, not the larger man he grew into. Or, failing to mention he was suspended from school, his racists facebook presence, or the fact that the neighborhood in question had been terrorized by recent crime and he was walking near windows? In the whole debacle, on Fox got it right and reported something near the truth. (whether the shooting was justified is another matter. Shouldn't we at least have the correct facts?"
Or, if you hate the uber-rich using their money so much to influence media, then can you explain the absence of complaining on these forums about George Soros giving million in grants to fund left leaning journalists. Not to mention the undue influence and bias of Hollywood/tv elite doing the same thing. Or, is it just only bad in your "mind" when people from outside your narrow perspective do these things?
Perhaps you should look in the mirror first. Perhaps YOU are the shallow minded one, who only reads from biased, dishonest sources. Perhaps YOU need to broaden your outlook to other forms of thought, and not be so very scared of challenging ideas. Perhaps YOU should understand that the US needs far more saving from the likes of NBC than FOX.
Or, perhaps I should stop even dreaming about it because this is modern slashdot, where ideas and support does not matter.
-Maize
Ps. Notice the supporting links I used were from more liberal sources?
Slashdot Mirror
If you look into the theory of chemtrails, one of the first thing you learn is that they are different from contrails. They last longer, disperse in unusual ways. It was these differences that made people look into them. There are attempts to read them using various forms of elemental analysis, with some interesting findings. .
.
.
.
No one is quite sure why the spraying is occurring (if it is at all). In your very unscientific approach to dismissal, you posit why not just have the government make the trails invisible. You say this because you have automatically assumed it is all unreal or imaginary, without looking into this yourself. Otherwise, you would understand the chemtrails people are not claiming they government is spraying the air with imaginarium or some Avengers made up compound, but real materials with known physical properties. It would not be invisible because nothing really is..
I have not investigated chemtrails first hand. I have not run a spectrograph of one. I do not KNOW if the results are real or not. That said, I can routinely find made up results in most scientific journals, so I have a healthy dose of much of the "science" that is in play today. (As a practicing bioengineer, what I see published at times alarms me). So, I am not as fast to dismiss what is made fun of as fringe science as fast as the average reader on this forum. I believe in experiment and results, no matter where it leads. I prejudge nothing.
More to the point, in an age where we find the NSA is spying on us all, which was just a few years ago laughed at as a fringe idea by many, you would think the intelligent people who read slashdot would get past the pejoratives and take a look at things for themselves with open mind.
FYI: from the US patent office about HAARP:.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,686,605.PN.&OS=PN/4,686,605&RS=PN/4,686,605
The physics are interesting. Perhaps read?
-TM
That said, if I must:
http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2007/09/when_was_the_exact_day_slashdo.html
There ya go. B-slapped much?
can remember a time where to be moded up, you needed to have great depth in your thought or informative support with links, or really, really clever/funny.
I humbly suggest that read and think more before knee jerk posting. The world is more complicated than you think. You think a certain way. You speak a certain way, because someone has crafted a message for you. Instead of being so vitriolic when someone suggests a counter argument or differing world view, take some time and explore.
Its really the height of irony that those who pride themselves on challenging the status quo and excepted "truth" are the last ones to ever do so when it comes to their beliefs. I mean you, gratuitously liberal slashdot poster. When something becomes an ideology, you leave the realm of rationality. This is true for religion, right wing and yes, even left wing politics.
Now, to shut down your reply. It depends on what you mean by own. Rupert Murdoch does not completely own his various media outlets, but has a controlling share. Similarly, Soros has a controlling and influential stake in many things. The difference is you turn a blind eye to later. That is a sad thing.
By name calling like a 5 year old, this makes you more correct? By having no examples, no evidence, just emotion this is a good argument? By attributing statements too me that I never said, this makes you intellectually honest? Yet, this gets moded up to 3, and I get a troll. Again, modern slashdot has become a poor, disgraceful thing. Again, I still remember the heady days when it was an arena of ideas. Not a sandpit of childishness and ignorance. Be better slashdot. Be better.
This is yet another example of how the once great Slashdot has fallen. I can remember a time where to be moded up, you needed to have great depth in your thought or informative support with links, or really, really clever/funny. Now, apparently you just have to be gratuitously liberal.
Let me bite the cough, interesting troll for a second. How is Murdoch trying to destroy the US? By providing an alternative point of view than offered by the other 4 networks? That is bad why? I thought smart, informed people, like people who read this forum seem to think they are, LIKE to see differing viewpoints then weigh them. I thought smart, informed people would be against just a small group of people controlling all thought. It doesn't bother you that most media members with a near monolithic bias control what you read, see, hear? You want there to be less choice?
Or is it, you think Fox news is inherently more inaccurate. Like say, in the Trayvon Martin case where NBC altered the 911 tape to make it sound like Zimmerman said something racist, when he did not? Not to mention the other 3 letter networks biasing opinion by showing a picture of a sweeter Trayvon when he was younger, not the larger man he grew into. Or, failing to mention he was suspended from school, his racists facebook presence, or the fact that the neighborhood in question had been terrorized by recent crime and he was walking near windows? In the whole debacle, on Fox got it right and reported something near the truth. (whether the shooting was justified is another matter. Shouldn't we at least have the correct facts?"
Or, if you hate the uber-rich using their money so much to influence media, then can you explain the absence of complaining on these forums about George Soros giving million in grants to fund left leaning journalists. Not to mention the undue influence and bias of Hollywood/tv elite doing the same thing. Or, is it just only bad in your "mind" when people from outside your narrow perspective do these things?
Perhaps you should look in the mirror first. Perhaps YOU are the shallow minded one, who only reads from biased, dishonest sources. Perhaps YOU need to broaden your outlook to other forms of thought, and not be so very scared of challenging ideas. Perhaps YOU should understand that the US needs far more saving from the likes of NBC than FOX.
Or, perhaps I should stop even dreaming about it because this is modern slashdot, where ideas and support does not matter.
-Maize
Ps. Notice the supporting links I used were from more liberal sources?