Because he broke the law, so his opinion on why he got shut down is moot. He broke the law. You don't like the law? Then change the law, but don't go into business while breaking the law then complain you got shut down because you were breaking the law.
"Regular people, just doing ordinary legal business now need to worry about this?"
NOt as far as I can tell, no. TBH, this guy is being paranoid. You can decide if you want to be paranoid too, like him, but let's e honest, no, regular people do not need to worry about this.
Take the audience and context into account.
"Doesn't this read more like an item that one would have expected to read - historically - by someone concerned about a visit to the Soviet Union, East Germany or Argentina?"
No, it looks like a guy being a little too paranoid.
Frankly, I'm much more interested in an investigation that can't be easily dismissed like these guys inevitably will be.
It's great that people are coming forward, but what does it really matter in the long run?
"My question was about the viability of bio-diesel in general."
And I refused to answer. It's not relevant. And frankly, you could look it up yourself and be happier with the answer.
"Either way, they are still doing SOMETHING, which is better than what 99% of the rest of the world is doing about the problem."
Really? I'd like you to explain this reasoning, because I know I'm doing something too, and AFAIK, the majority of people recycle. So, could you please tell me how you reached this 99% number?
"Picking out some minor "hypocrisy" to shoot down your opponent might be effective in politics when the average voter has no more than a high school education, but those of us that can actually think logically know better."
Greenpeace's ENTIRE REASON FOR EXISTENCE is the environment. I like your little jab, it was a nice attempt at an insult, but it still doesn't explain why a group who's goal is to protect the environment CHOOSES to allocate resources to other things, while not taking simple steps that fall in to their stated goals.
This isn't picking one minor hypocrisy, this is picking one minor example of MAJOR hypocrisy. Apparently, your "high school education" isn't as useful as you think.
My point, which I will state clearly, one time is this.
Why is a goup, who's stated goal is to preserve the environment, not doing something as simple as using biodiesel in place of regular diesel?
After answering that (and the answer, most probably, will have something to do with the previously stated "practicality") explain why OTHER groups, in dealing with Greenpeace, aren't allowed to draw attention to their own less than ideal choices and claim that they too, are only doing what they are doing for the sake of practicality?
I hope it's clear now. I look forward to a reasoned answer.
Actually, tool YOU misspelled your name, and I refused to follow your moronic misspelling.
Why are you such an asshole? This whole thing started because I refuted one of your incorrect assertions, and rather than reply like someone who wanted to learn, you flamed. Why couldn't you just not be an idiot and respond intelligently to my original post, instead of posting the moronic reply?
Why do you seem to relish being despised? Why do you self identify as being whiney (sic) when you know that's something people hate?
Because you're a fucking troll. You can call ME a troll all you like, but you've embraced it. Explain that away.
Oh god shut the fuck up. Suddenly a typo means I'm a "homophobe", this generations version of calling someone a "commie". Stop acting like a typo is some justification for you acting like a twat.
And there's ONE letter between them on a qwerty keyboard you stupid fuck. How could you fuck something that simple up? Really, it's RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU moron.
"It would take millions of acres of farms to produce enough to replace oil and so instead of burning fossil fuels, we've destroyed every last inch of forest."
If we were talking about replacing oil, you'd be right. Nice how you tried to change the subject like that.
We're not talking about replacing oil however, we're talking about replacing oil ON GREEPEACE VESSELS. So save the fearmongering and address MY point, not a made up point that you think makes your position more defensible.
"They more get involved on the production side, not the wearing side. And fur-wise, they only get involved with baby seals, not furs in general."
Ok, firts, that wrong. Second, I was referring to the incident where Greenpeace dyed baby seals, subsequently making them eaiser prey and limiting their ability to tolerate cold.
"It is completely absurd to say that a person who believes in the environment cannot use any fossil fuels."
Great I agree, that's why I never said that. Why make up an argument instead of addressing mine?
"But I find your argument that practical limits mean one shouldn't try to improve some aspects of our enviroment to be foolish."
Never said nor implied that. Why make up an argument instead of addressing mine?
Read that, then edit your post. I doubt you'll have more than a few punctuations left.
Really, why reply to me when the only thing you've addressed are arguments I didn't make? Does it make you feel special to make up arguments then knock them down?
"I love how everyone is willing to cry "hypocrisy" the minute someone doesn't 100% practice what they preach. It's called practicality"
So how much "practicality" does Greepeace allow whalers, or people who wear fur, or other groups they disagree with?
And by the way, it can be called practicality and hypocrisy at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive.
One question, you should be able to answer. Are the Greenpeace boats runnig Biodiesel? If yes, then bully, if no, then you need to shut the fuck up. There's nothing impractical about putting a different fuel in the tank.
"This was right under the line you linked to Ad hominem! Hahahaha, I should call Alanis & let her know about some 'Irony'."
Go ahead. You'd be wrong about that too, just like she was.
It's not an ad hoiminem. You are whiny. I make no other observations, nor do I address your arguments. If I had, it would be an ad hominem, but I didn't, so it's not.
"involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself."
Addesssing the fact that you are whiny is not an ad hominem if it does not address your argument. Perhaps if you hadn't been in such a rush to reformulate your argument after i destroyed it, you couuld have actually read the link I gave you.
First you said this
"I surprised that you can be terrorised by something that doesn't damage "things or persons"."
Then when shown that examples of such terrorism DO occur, you change the subject and respond with this
"The linked article does not mention a bomb threat - it talks about a peaceful protest. Do you really think that is terrorism?"
At this point, it's pretty obvious you're not interested in seeing or reading anything that refutes your world view, and when shown something that does, you change your assertions.
I won't waste more time with someone who isn't interested in educating themselves. You've made up your mind, and any evidence that contradicts you, you dismiss, or dance around, or outright ignore.
"I was going to comment on your 'trolling' jibe, but a quick perusal of your posting history shows you to be a troll of the most common sort."
Nice. That's called an ad hominem. And it doesn't change the facts as I listed them.
"I surprised that you can be terrorised by something that doesn't damage "things or persons"."
What a colossally stupid comment. Who is damaged by a bomb scare? No one. Who is damaged by threat of violence against a particular group of people? No one. God how could you allow yourself to say something so stupid?
"I didn't make a definition"
No, you simply added unrelated qualifications to the current one. No difference.
"I was going to comment on your 'trolling' jibe, but a quick perusal of your posting history shows you to be a troll of the most common sort."
Why, because I've been modded down? I've been modded up too, and if current history is any indicator, you're a far warse troll than I am. In fact, near as I can tell, I haven't received a single troll mod. How many do you have?
Lastly, your sad attempt to divert attention from your own errors by attacking me is an ad hominem. I have included a definition, so in the future when you say something stupid, you won't be able to attack the person pointing out how stupid your comment is. Well, you can, but you'll know it's an ad hominem, so you'll be using it intentionally.
"If someone suggests that FOSS needs to be more user friendly, then the answer is that Windows sucks"
That certainly seems to be the consensus. I've always found it interesting that, despite the obvious fact that many people find the use of FOSS to be difficult, rather than listen to these people, the "community" dismisses their observations. Even worse, as you say, is when the "community" develops the opinion that rather than be judged on its own merits, the only useful measure of FOSS, or Linux based distros in particular, is a comparison against Windows.
People are saying that some things are too difficult. Responses that blame other people don't help. Complaining that "Windows is hard too" doesn't help. It might make you feel better, but seriously, what a whiny fanboy response.
Stop comparing something that isn't Windows, and is supposed to be different from Windows, against Windows. If something is too difficult, the fact that it is also difficult on Windows is supposed to make me feel better?
"Well, we know this particular distro has installation issues, and we know that your particular device isn't supported, and we know that documentation is somewhat lacking, but look at how much Windows sucks!"
It's called constructive criticism. Successful people embrace it.
You didn't ask for a conviction, and frankly, your point about EU anti-terrorism laws is a useless diversion.
"Doesn't sound a helluva lot like terrorism to me."
Well, so what? You're wrong, why should we adjust the definition to suit you when you've already shown you'll say whatever you need to, and change the definition however you need to in order to continue trolling.
Terrorism is about terror. It has nothing to do with "damage to things and persons", so stop making up definitons when the real ones don't suit you.
Its behaviors include off-topic comments about the US government, which it uses as a method of attracting less intelligent moderators.
As you can see, this Karma Whore's trap worked perfectly, fooling a particularly mindless moderator, and successfully gaining karma.
Many moderators are intelligent enough to see the Karma Whore's attempts for what they are. Sadly, in any population there will be those that aren't bright enough to sniff out the trap, despite its simplistic construction and lack of sophistication.
Karma Whores rely on such individuals, as they are also not very bright, and without other less intelligent prey, would not survive long in the wild.
I don't know why you keep responding like that, it just makes me more right and you more childish.
I can't believe you keep letting me show you up like that. Well, yes I can actually, you've been acting like a pre-schooler the whole thread, so why expect anything different now.
"Once it starts to unravel, we're going to find out more about the vast conspiracy that is the neo-con movement, from rigging the ballot to treason to war profiteering and on and on. It will shake the republic to its very roots. But once we excise them from the body politic and expunge their backers (the ultra-wealthy who are behind it all), we'll be a much stronger country."
You modded THAT garbage up.
What the fuck? A rant about one conspiracy theory after another, a rant about "excising" people from the politicl process EVEN THOUGH IT'S THEIR POLITICAL PROCESS TOO, and a blind assertion get +5?
You should all be ahsamed of how you've let slashtdot fall. Instead of REAL insight we get kooks who have already decided what the rpoblem is, how to deal with it, who is at fault, who's rights to take away, and who to blame.
THAT is the problem with American politics. Reason is discarded in favor of whomever screams the loudest.
Fuck you AC, all you've done is flame and make an idiotic observation.
NOWHERE in those links is ANY admission of "breaking federal law" AC, so tell me AC, since you seem to be in the habit of making unnecessary, ill informed comments, WHAT THE FUCK WAS I WRONG ABOUT? WELL, YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT?
"Likewise, you can't expect a non-lawyer to have read every law that any specific current event is related to."
First, it's ONE law, you stupid cunt, and frankly, I wouldn't expect your idiot AC ass to read it. I did, however, so if I'm a retard and I read it, what's your excuse? WELL YOU FUCK?
"They can get their analysis from a reliable source and point to those sources when asked."
And he didn't post it. So stop posting AC, you stupid bag of crap, and log back in and explain why you didn't post it. We all know it's you "Nasarius" you stupid piece of trash, so log back in instead of pulling that stupid AC crap.
So, tell me again how I was wrong WHEN ALL I ASKED FOR WERE LINKS TO THE SOURCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S ARGUMENTS?
Fuck you AC, it's sad that when I show you you're wrong you have to post AC because you're so ashamed of how completely you were refuted.
GOD I HATE FUCKING AC'S. But losers like Nasarius who log out to post as AC and flame when they've been shown to be talking out of their ass are the worst.
"Oops, my theory was successfully predictive, wasn't it?"
Not unless you predicted that you'd talk out of your ass, and act like you knew somehing about the subject when you don't.
"Alertness != calm. Everyone is made alert by caffeine, but only certain types of people become calmer."
NO. I made the statement pretty clearly before, but I guess I have to say it more simply.
Sympathomimetics (which caffeine IS NOT) have the behavior you describe. These drugs are the kind typically prescribed for ADHD, and DO have the effects you describe.
Caffeine, while having some sympathomimetic effects, is NOT in the same group. It has a different chemical action and DOES NOT result in the effects you describe.
"That's all very well, but that Archaeology article spends all it's time slamming the person, not discussing his claims, and reads a lot like a personal attack."
My post was an explanation to the GP, who clearly did not bother to even TRY and understand the context of the article, and instead, assumed it was something it wasn't.
"Why so frustrated?"
You're kidding, right? Do you know how amazingly irritating it is to see good posts that deserve more discussion tossed aside in favor or worthless tripe like this?
I predicted AGAIN, how you would respond. Childishness and insults.
You came through, so at least you're reliable.
"Your statement makes no sense because I was right initially and I'm right currently."
No, you weren't. Linking to NPOV didn't prove me wrong, it proved you hadn't read it yet, but now, you seem to think you're right about something. None of what you said before or since refuted me. The fact that you think so is why I'm making fun of your childishness.
"I've already listed the major point of contention as a victory for me."
Of course you have. That's the only thing you're capable of doing when you're wrong. Attack, and insist you're right in the face of irrefutable evidence. But AGAIN, SLOWLY because that's how you need it, you NEVER refuted me. YOU refuted a STRAW MAN (look it up, I know such concepts are difficult for those like you) and not MY POSITION.
"So what are all the other sentences for? Oh that's right: insults."
There wasn't a single insult in my entire post.
Which is more evidence that your opinion on anything bears no weight. YOU CAN'T EVEN READ A POST ON SLASHDOT without getting it wrong. What on earth makes you think anything else you say is worth a damn?
"You keep implying that if I reply to your posts that means you were proved right somehow"
No, little fella, I keep TELLING YOU that none of your responses say what you claim, and in fact are rambling, poorly concocted diatribes at the level of an elementary school student.
I'm not IMPLYING anything, I'm TELLING YOU that you're posts have yet to rise above the level of schoolyard banter, and deserve the same consideration.
In other words, YET AGAIN, you respond like a little boy. Like a child. Like a baby who, when shown that he was wrong, resorts to any means necessary including lying and misrepresenting others' arguments, in a vain and embarrassing attempt to avoid admitting failure.
I seriously doubt you have any idea how to respond otherwise.
But it's ok, me showing how wrong and childish you are isn't a big problem. No one pays any attention to what you think anyway, so it's really more of an academic exercise for me.
Perhaps I've helped you understand why you aren't intellectually capable of carrying on this conversation.
Regardless, I've been right the whole time, and the only purpose of this post was to clarify exactly why so many people ignore you when you talk. I was trying to help you, but as in the case of children, you attack irrationally.
JUST AS I PREDICTED YOU WOULD.
That must be very embarassing for you, not having the ability to move outside of the behaviors most people give up on when they grow up. How do you live with yourself, being WRONG and childish?
One last thing, this isn't a flame war, it's me pointing how how you'll dance, and you dancing as though it's your choice. It's about me showing you what you'll do, and you doing it.
It's about you being my toy, and not being bright enough to know when you've been outsmarted.
But, I did have fun. It was way too easy, because you're not much of a challenge, but it was still fun.
Just stop acting like a five year old though, and you wont have to deal with being routinely outsmarted. I'm sure you've grown tired of being inferior to me intellectually.
Just remember though, someone has to be number two.
And, quite frankly, you're the biggest number two I have ever seen.
"Caffeine is a central nervous system stimulant, and is used both recreationally and medically to restore mental alertness when unusual weakness or drowsiness occurs. Doses of 100-200 mg result in increased alertness and wakefulness, faster and clearer flow of thought, increased focus, and better general body coordination."
Caffeine has these effects on everyone.
I beleive you are generalizing the (hypothesized) behavior of a certain type of drugs with the behavior of caffeine. They are not the same.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why not ask this guy?"
Because he broke the law, so his opinion on why he got shut down is moot. He broke the law. You don't like the law? Then change the law, but don't go into business while breaking the law then complain you got shut down because you were breaking the law.
"Of course, they wouldn't call it "arbitrary" "
Neither should anyone else.
The one on the right was hotter, so I guess it works.
I put my picture in and nothing changed.
"Regular people, just doing ordinary legal business now need to worry about this?"
NOt as far as I can tell, no. TBH, this guy is being paranoid. You can decide if you want to be paranoid too, like him, but let's e honest, no, regular people do not need to worry about this.
Take the audience and context into account.
"Doesn't this read more like an item that one would have expected to read - historically - by someone concerned about a visit to the Soviet Union, East Germany or Argentina?"
No, it looks like a guy being a little too paranoid.
Frankly, I'm much more interested in an investigation that can't be easily dismissed like these guys inevitably will be. It's great that people are coming forward, but what does it really matter in the long run?
"My question was about the viability of bio-diesel in general."
And I refused to answer. It's not relevant. And frankly, you could look it up yourself and be happier with the answer.
"Either way, they are still doing SOMETHING, which is better than what 99% of the rest of the world is doing about the problem."
Really? I'd like you to explain this reasoning, because I know I'm doing something too, and AFAIK, the majority of people recycle. So, could you please tell me how you reached this 99% number?
"Picking out some minor "hypocrisy" to shoot down your opponent might be effective in politics when the average voter has no more than a high school education, but those of us that can actually think logically know better."
Greenpeace's ENTIRE REASON FOR EXISTENCE is the environment. I like your little jab, it was a nice attempt at an insult, but it still doesn't explain why a group who's goal is to protect the environment CHOOSES to allocate resources to other things, while not taking simple steps that fall in to their stated goals.
This isn't picking one minor hypocrisy, this is picking one minor example of MAJOR hypocrisy. Apparently, your "high school education" isn't as useful as you think.
My point, which I will state clearly, one time is this.
Why is a goup, who's stated goal is to preserve the environment, not doing something as simple as using biodiesel in place of regular diesel?
After answering that (and the answer, most probably, will have something to do with the previously stated "practicality") explain why OTHER groups, in dealing with Greenpeace, aren't allowed to draw attention to their own less than ideal choices and claim that they too, are only doing what they are doing for the sake of practicality?
I hope it's clear now. I look forward to a reasoned answer.
Actually, tool YOU misspelled your name, and I refused to follow your moronic misspelling.
Why are you such an asshole? This whole thing started because I refuted one of your incorrect assertions, and rather than reply like someone who wanted to learn, you flamed. Why couldn't you just not be an idiot and respond intelligently to my original post, instead of posting the moronic reply?
Why do you seem to relish being despised? Why do you self identify as being whiney (sic) when you know that's something people hate?
Because you're a fucking troll. You can call ME a troll all you like, but you've embraced it. Explain that away.
Oh god shut the fuck up. Suddenly a typo means I'm a "homophobe", this generations version of calling someone a "commie". Stop acting like a typo is some justification for you acting like a twat.
And there's ONE letter between them on a qwerty keyboard you stupid fuck. How could you fuck something that simple up? Really, it's RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU moron.
All you have to do is point to the exact statement that I used to do either of the things you've attributed to me.
Or MAYBE you pathetic AC, there has been more than one person replying and you're too dim-witted to notice.
god dammit that was supposed to be "Mac faN".
Ah well, I was headed for the -1 bin anyway...
Any excuse for being an idiot, eh Whiny? Do us a favor and die. We won't miss one more Mac fag.
"Is biodiesel better for the environment?"
Better than fossil fuels.
"It would take millions of acres of farms to produce enough to replace oil and so instead of burning fossil fuels, we've destroyed every last inch of forest."
If we were talking about replacing oil, you'd be right. Nice how you tried to change the subject like that.
We're not talking about replacing oil however, we're talking about replacing oil ON GREEPEACE VESSELS. So save the fearmongering and address MY point, not a made up point that you think makes your position more defensible.
"They more get involved on the production side, not the wearing side. And fur-wise, they only get involved with baby seals, not furs in general."
Ok, firts, that wrong. Second, I was referring to the incident where Greenpeace dyed baby seals, subsequently making them eaiser prey and limiting their ability to tolerate cold.
"It is completely absurd to say that a person who believes in the environment cannot use any fossil fuels."
Great I agree, that's why I never said that. Why make up an argument instead of addressing mine?
"But I find your argument that practical limits mean one shouldn't try to improve some aspects of our enviroment to be foolish."
Never said nor implied that. Why make up an argument instead of addressing mine?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Read that, then edit your post. I doubt you'll have more than a few punctuations left.
Really, why reply to me when the only thing you've addressed are arguments I didn't make? Does it make you feel special to make up arguments then knock them down?
"I love how everyone is willing to cry "hypocrisy" the minute someone doesn't 100% practice what they preach. It's called practicality"
So how much "practicality" does Greepeace allow whalers, or people who wear fur, or other groups they disagree with?
And by the way, it can be called practicality and hypocrisy at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive.
One question, you should be able to answer. Are the Greenpeace boats runnig Biodiesel? If yes, then bully, if no, then you need to shut the fuck up. There's nothing impractical about putting a different fuel in the tank.
"This was right under the line you linked to Ad hominem! Hahahaha, I should call Alanis & let her know about some 'Irony'."
Go ahead. You'd be wrong about that too, just like she was.
It's not an ad hoiminem. You are whiny. I make no other observations, nor do I address your arguments. If I had, it would be an ad hominem, but I didn't, so it's not.
"involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself."
Addesssing the fact that you are whiny is not an ad hominem if it does not address your argument. Perhaps if you hadn't been in such a rush to reformulate your argument after i destroyed it, you couuld have actually read the link I gave you.
First you said this
"I surprised that you can be terrorised by something that doesn't damage "things or persons"."
Then when shown that examples of such terrorism DO occur, you change the subject and respond with this
"The linked article does not mention a bomb threat - it talks about a peaceful protest. Do you really think that is terrorism?"
At this point, it's pretty obvious you're not interested in seeing or reading anything that refutes your world view, and when shown something that does, you change your assertions.
I won't waste more time with someone who isn't interested in educating themselves. You've made up your mind, and any evidence that contradicts you, you dismiss, or dance around, or outright ignore.
When are you running for office?
"I was going to comment on your 'trolling' jibe, but a quick perusal of your posting history shows you to be a troll of the most common sort."
Nice. That's called an ad hominem. And it doesn't change the facts as I listed them.
"I surprised that you can be terrorised by something that doesn't damage "things or persons"."
What a colossally stupid comment. Who is damaged by a bomb scare? No one. Who is damaged by threat of violence against a particular group of people? No one. God how could you allow yourself to say something so stupid?
"I didn't make a definition"
No, you simply added unrelated qualifications to the current one. No difference.
"I was going to comment on your 'trolling' jibe, but a quick perusal of your posting history shows you to be a troll of the most common sort."
Why, because I've been modded down? I've been modded up too, and if current history is any indicator, you're a far warse troll than I am. In fact, near as I can tell, I haven't received a single troll mod. How many do you have?
Lastly, your sad attempt to divert attention from your own errors by attacking me is an ad hominem. I have included a definition, so in the future when you say something stupid, you won't be able to attack the person pointing out how stupid your comment is. Well, you can, but you'll know it's an ad hominem, so you'll be using it intentionally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I should have read your name before responding to you. It's pretty clear you didn't choose it by accident.
"If someone suggests that FOSS needs to be more user friendly, then the answer is that Windows sucks"
That certainly seems to be the consensus. I've always found it interesting that, despite the obvious fact that many people find the use of FOSS to be difficult, rather than listen to these people, the "community" dismisses their observations. Even worse, as you say, is when the "community" develops the opinion that rather than be judged on its own merits, the only useful measure of FOSS, or Linux based distros in particular, is a comparison against Windows.
People are saying that some things are too difficult. Responses that blame other people don't help. Complaining that "Windows is hard too" doesn't help. It might make you feel better, but seriously, what a whiny fanboy response.
Stop comparing something that isn't Windows, and is supposed to be different from Windows, against Windows. If something is too difficult, the fact that it is also difficult on Windows is supposed to make me feel better?
"Well, we know this particular distro has installation issues, and we know that your particular device isn't supported, and we know that documentation is somewhat lacking, but look at how much Windows sucks!"
It's called constructive criticism. Successful people embrace it.
You asked for a link detailing their activities.
You didn't ask for a conviction, and frankly, your point about EU anti-terrorism laws is a useless diversion.
"Doesn't sound a helluva lot like terrorism to me."
Well, so what? You're wrong, why should we adjust the definition to suit you when you've already shown you'll say whatever you need to, and change the definition however you need to in order to continue trolling.
Terrorism is about terror. It has nothing to do with "damage to things and persons", so stop making up definitons when the real ones don't suit you.
What you just read was the Common Karma Whore.
Its behaviors include off-topic comments about the US government, which it uses as a method of attracting less intelligent moderators.
As you can see, this Karma Whore's trap worked perfectly, fooling a particularly mindless moderator, and successfully gaining karma.
Many moderators are intelligent enough to see the Karma Whore's attempts for what they are. Sadly, in any population there will be those that aren't bright enough to sniff out the trap, despite its simplistic construction and lack of sophistication.
Karma Whores rely on such individuals, as they are also not very bright, and without other less intelligent prey, would not survive long in the wild.
I said you'd behave like a child, and you did.
"
I don't know why you keep responding like that, it just makes me more right and you more childish.
I can't believe you keep letting me show you up like that. Well, yes I can actually, you've been acting like a pre-schooler the whole thread, so why expect anything different now.
"AAHAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!
Like that for example.
"COULD you PUT ANY more all-CAPS words IN your POSTS? Hahaa."
Could you act any more LIKE A FIVE YEAR OLD? Actually, I'm not sure you could...
"Liar."
Well, at least you're polite enough to sign your posts.
"Once it starts to unravel, we're going to find out more about the vast conspiracy that is the neo-con movement, from rigging the ballot to treason to war profiteering and on and on. It will shake the republic to its very roots. But once we excise them from the body politic and expunge their backers (the ultra-wealthy who are behind it all), we'll be a much stronger country."
You modded THAT garbage up.
What the fuck? A rant about one conspiracy theory after another, a rant about "excising" people from the politicl process EVEN THOUGH IT'S THEIR POLITICAL PROCESS TOO, and a blind assertion get +5?
You should all be ahsamed of how you've let slashtdot fall. Instead of REAL insight we get kooks who have already decided what the rpoblem is, how to deal with it, who is at fault, who's rights to take away, and who to blame.
THAT is the problem with American politics. Reason is discarded in favor of whomever screams the loudest.
And you idiots fell for it.
"So you've been proven wrong, retard."
Fuck you AC, all you've done is flame and make an idiotic observation.
NOWHERE in those links is ANY admission of "breaking federal law" AC, so tell me AC, since you seem to be in the habit of making unnecessary, ill informed comments, WHAT THE FUCK WAS I WRONG ABOUT? WELL, YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT?
"Likewise, you can't expect a non-lawyer to have read every law that any specific current event is related to."
First, it's ONE law, you stupid cunt, and frankly, I wouldn't expect your idiot AC ass to read it. I did, however, so if I'm a retard and I read it, what's your excuse? WELL YOU FUCK?
"They can get their analysis from a reliable source and point to those sources when asked."
And he didn't post it. So stop posting AC, you stupid bag of crap, and log back in and explain why you didn't post it. We all know it's you "Nasarius" you stupid piece of trash, so log back in instead of pulling that stupid AC crap.
So, tell me again how I was wrong WHEN ALL I ASKED FOR WERE LINKS TO THE SOURCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S ARGUMENTS?
Fuck you AC, it's sad that when I show you you're wrong you have to post AC because you're so ashamed of how completely you were refuted.
GOD I HATE FUCKING AC'S. But losers like Nasarius who log out to post as AC and flame when they've been shown to be talking out of their ass are the worst.
"Oops, my theory was successfully predictive, wasn't it?"
Not unless you predicted that you'd talk out of your ass, and act like you knew somehing about the subject when you don't.
"Alertness != calm. Everyone is made alert by caffeine, but only certain types of people become calmer."
NO. I made the statement pretty clearly before, but I guess I have to say it more simply.
Sympathomimetics (which caffeine IS NOT) have the behavior you describe. These drugs are the kind typically prescribed for ADHD, and DO have the effects you describe.
Caffeine, while having some sympathomimetic effects, is NOT in the same group. It has a different chemical action and DOES NOT result in the effects you describe.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Do you understand now?
"That's all very well, but that Archaeology article spends all it's time slamming the person, not discussing his claims, and reads a lot like a personal attack."
My post was an explanation to the GP, who clearly did not bother to even TRY and understand the context of the article, and instead, assumed it was something it wasn't.
"Why so frustrated?"
You're kidding, right? Do you know how amazingly irritating it is to see good posts that deserve more discussion tossed aside in favor or worthless tripe like this?
I predicted AGAIN, how you would respond. Childishness and insults.
You came through, so at least you're reliable.
"Your statement makes no sense because I was right initially and I'm right currently."
No, you weren't. Linking to NPOV didn't prove me wrong, it proved you hadn't read it yet, but now, you seem to think you're right about something. None of what you said before or since refuted me. The fact that you think so is why I'm making fun of your childishness.
"I've already listed the major point of contention as a victory for me."
Of course you have. That's the only thing you're capable of doing when you're wrong. Attack, and insist you're right in the face of irrefutable evidence. But AGAIN, SLOWLY because that's how you need it, you NEVER refuted me. YOU refuted a STRAW MAN (look it up, I know such concepts are difficult for those like you) and not MY POSITION.
"So what are all the other sentences for? Oh that's right: insults."
There wasn't a single insult in my entire post.
Which is more evidence that your opinion on anything bears no weight. YOU CAN'T EVEN READ A POST ON SLASHDOT without getting it wrong. What on earth makes you think anything else you say is worth a damn?
"You keep implying that if I reply to your posts that means you were proved right somehow"
No, little fella, I keep TELLING YOU that none of your responses say what you claim, and in fact are rambling, poorly concocted diatribes at the level of an elementary school student.
I'm not IMPLYING anything, I'm TELLING YOU that you're posts have yet to rise above the level of schoolyard banter, and deserve the same consideration.
In other words, YET AGAIN, you respond like a little boy. Like a child. Like a baby who, when shown that he was wrong, resorts to any means necessary including lying and misrepresenting others' arguments, in a vain and embarrassing attempt to avoid admitting failure.
I seriously doubt you have any idea how to respond otherwise.
But it's ok, me showing how wrong and childish you are isn't a big problem. No one pays any attention to what you think anyway, so it's really more of an academic exercise for me.
Perhaps I've helped you understand why you aren't intellectually capable of carrying on this conversation.
Regardless, I've been right the whole time, and the only purpose of this post was to clarify exactly why so many people ignore you when you talk. I was trying to help you, but as in the case of children, you attack irrationally.
JUST AS I PREDICTED YOU WOULD.
That must be very embarassing for you, not having the ability to move outside of the behaviors most people give up on when they grow up. How do you live with yourself, being WRONG and childish?
One last thing, this isn't a flame war, it's me pointing how how you'll dance, and you dancing as though it's your choice. It's about me showing you what you'll do, and you doing it.
It's about you being my toy, and not being bright enough to know when you've been outsmarted.
But, I did have fun. It was way too easy, because you're not much of a challenge, but it was still fun.
Just stop acting like a five year old though, and you wont have to deal with being routinely outsmarted. I'm sure you've grown tired of being inferior to me intellectually.
Just remember though, someone has to be number two.
And, quite frankly, you're the biggest number two I have ever seen.
"Caffeine is a central nervous system stimulant, and is used both recreationally and medically to restore mental alertness when unusual weakness or drowsiness occurs. Doses of 100-200 mg result in increased alertness and wakefulness, faster and clearer flow of thought, increased focus, and better general body coordination."
Caffeine has these effects on everyone.
I beleive you are generalizing the (hypothesized) behavior of a certain type of drugs with the behavior of caffeine. They are not the same.