"I think the most wonderful thing a man could offer a woman on their wedding night is the assurance that he has never lusted over another woman in his life."
"You are correct that I need to do more research - everyone does. But again that in no way invalidates my entire argument"
Actually, that's exactly what it does. You've made factually incorrect statements, which upon refutation, you stand by. That speaks to your (lack of) credibility, which directly effects the validity of ALL of your arguments.
"You keep claiming that because I have one fact wrong it invalidates my entire argument and it does not."
Nope, what I keep claiming is that you could be reasonably expected to show the same level of accuracy across your arguments. With no other standard to judge you by, one grossly inaccurate statement (followed by an exclamation, then an assertion of accuracy) calls all of your arguments into question.
In other words, why believe anything you say when you've already demonstrated a willingness to be... flexible with the facts.
"But maybe that's too much to ask..."
How about this, no more derogatory comments from me, as long as you agree not to post anymore grossly inaccurate assertions. Deal?
"So a president that's intent on bringing Catholic values into the white house and every facet of government is discrimination against Catholics?"
He's not a Catholic, he's a Methodist if I recall correctly. In case you were unaware, they don't see eye to eye, so the "Catholic values" you're talking about, well, what the fuck are you talking about?
"The point of that paragraph was to show that I did have some knowledge of what I'm talking about which you claimed I did not."
And it appears, based on the most recent post, that I was exactly right.
At least do a little fucking research before you spout off.
"So reversing that descrimination makes it right?"
What the fuck are you talking about? Catholics are STILL discrimnated against, that's the point.
It's obvious from your reply that you're only interested in continually restating your position without justification. Nothing you've said refutes me in any way, and your rambling paragraph about Granny only proves my point.
I don't know why you think you've made a case for anything, but you haven't. You've only wasted my time, and you'll get no more.
"Anyway, if the government can track you by your ID card, then they don't need to resort to a bunch of illegal stuff to fight crime and terrorism, as it seems to be a habit lately."
So, why is it that you think giving your freedom up voluntarily is any better than having it snatched from you?
You've gotten used to your chains. I am truly sorry for you.
Ridiculous prices Crying babies Idiots in the audience who decide to narrate Sticky floors and filthy seats
and
Cell phones
Did I miss anything? Fix that crap, and you won't have to worry about release schedules. There are still movies that need to be seen at theatres to get the full experience. But I simply won't put up with the rest of that crap, or theatres that tolerate it.
The other guy is right. Things were much worse in the past. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make them better, but let's not act like we're living during the Inquisition.
"Where the fuck was the US in the 50s, the 60s and the 70s when the smaller countries tried to throw off the Soviets? Where the fuck was the almighty US when tanks were smearing protesters in Budapest all over the streets?"
or against it?
"As for the rest of the world, I think the US record speaks for itself. Funding death squads in Latin America in the name of anti-communist ideology, or napalming thousands of asian people for the same reason, that's nothing to be proud of."
Well, which is it? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound bitching about not intervening and intervening in the same post?
That slashtrolls like you are so quick with the irresponsible and inaccurate speculation? For example
"Why is it that if someone asserts that the US might be doing the same thing with Windows and other things -- mandated back doors, master keys, etc -- they get dismissed as paranoid cranks who are just bashing the US government."
Doesn't happen. You can claim otherwise, but whenever the subject comes up, there is widespread agreement that MS has most likely given the US government what it needs to gain covert access. Are you perhaps browsing at -1?
How can you make a comparison between a single Church (which, by the way, is exercising it's rights under the Constitution, something which they wouldn't be allowed to do in Iran because they're the wrong religion) and the entire government of a country?
It sickens me sometimes how far people will twist reality in order to demonstrate some supposed equivalency.
"Over a scratchy speaker, a researcher announces, "Jack, one of your electrodes is loose, we're coming in." The 500-pound steel door of the experimental chamber opens with a heavy whoosh; two technicians wearing white lab coats march in. They remove the Ping-Pong-ball halves taped over my eyes and carefully lift a yellow motorcycle helmet that's been retrofitted with electromagnetic field-emitting solenoids on the sides, aimed directly at my temples. Above the left hemisphere of my 42-year-old male brain, they locate the dangling electrode, needed to measure and track my brain waves. The researchers slather more conducting cream into the graying wisps of my red hair and press the securing tape hard into my scalp."
"It is more than obvious now that we there is a serious problem with some people having a suceptability to certian frequencies and that those frequencies may not be the same for everyone affected."
So, since it's more than obvious (huh? What is "more" than obvious?) you should have no trouble providing the peer reviewed research.
The fact that you've assumed something is more than obvious, despite a dearth of supporting research, calls your motives into question.
"The fact that experiments may not show true correlation for specific frequencies does not disprove the problems."
Really? I thought that's exactly what they showed. Silly me.
How can we take you seriously when you dismiss the research you don't like and drawn a conclusion you do like (based on NO research) all in the same post.
"Either way this does not refute Dr. Persinger's findings nor the existence of radio-controlled Japanese scientists."
What needs to be refuted? In the cases sited, the subjects are either being given direct electrical current, or are hooked to electrodes that direct the field into their brains. In neither case does the EM exposure resemble in any way what is being discussed in this article.
I appreciate that you've done as much research as you have, but I thik your problems with the current AIDS situation stem from your misunderstandings and not from problems with the facts.
Read the discussion, read the links, and decide for yourself. The good news is that your objections are dealt with. The bad news, for you at least,is that they are also pretty roundly refuted.
Decide for yourself, although I beleive you already have, so I may be wasting my time.
It's always a lot of fun to do, but not the least bit informative most times. Add to that the fact that this article is about US politics (and is sensationalist tripe) and you'll uderstand why I disagree that he is informing himself at all.
"The more you watch the footage of 9/11, the more obvious the lies become. But don't take my word for it...do your own research."
I had two very close friends who were in visual range of the towers when this happened. I trust them with my life. They told me what happened and I beleive them.
You, on the other hand, are a notorious conspircay theorist and general shit talker, with absolutely ZERO credibility.
Frankly, sir, you're a liar, and the testimony of my friends is all the proof of that I need.
Pinker did the same thing to you that he does to so many others. He convinced you with flowery porse that disguised the lack of empirical support for his idea of "evolutionary psychology".
Pinker isn't in the majority. How you could be a linguistics student and believe this is beyond me.
"Reversing his rhetorical field a bit, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre on Tuesday declared that his company won't try to block or degrade customers' access to Internet applications or content,"
and this
"Any provider who blocks access to the Internet is inviting customers to find another provider," Whitacre said in his keynote speech. "It's bad business." He then emphatically stated that AT&T would not block independent services, "nor will we degrade [Internet access]. Period, end of story."
Of course he could be lying, but you really shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Well, ideally you're paying for the ability to read articles like this. If you'd used that ability, you'd realize the submitter was making shit up, and in fact, the aticle say nothing remotely resembling what the submitter claimed.
Slashdot Mirror
Of lying?
"Only people who live in the usa have a positive opinion of the usa."
That's so far from the truth that the rest of your arguments, no matter how sound, are ignored. Why make shit up?
"I think the most wonderful thing a man could offer a woman on their wedding night is the assurance that he has never lusted over another woman in his life."
So you want men to lie to their new brides then?
"You are correct that I need to do more research - everyone does. But again that in no way invalidates my entire argument"
Actually, that's exactly what it does. You've made factually incorrect statements, which upon refutation, you stand by. That speaks to your (lack of) credibility, which directly effects the validity of ALL of your arguments.
"You keep claiming that because I have one fact wrong it invalidates my entire argument and it does not."
Nope, what I keep claiming is that you could be reasonably expected to show the same level of accuracy across your arguments. With no other standard to judge you by, one grossly inaccurate statement (followed by an exclamation, then an assertion of accuracy) calls all of your arguments into question.
In other words, why believe anything you say when you've already demonstrated a willingness to be... flexible with the facts.
"But maybe that's too much to ask..."
How about this, no more derogatory comments from me, as long as you agree not to post anymore grossly inaccurate assertions. Deal?
"So a president that's intent on bringing Catholic values into the white house and every facet of government is discrimination against Catholics?"
He's not a Catholic, he's a Methodist if I recall correctly. In case you were unaware, they don't see eye to eye, so the "Catholic values" you're talking about, well, what the fuck are you talking about?
"The point of that paragraph was to show that I did have some knowledge of what I'm talking about which you claimed I did not."
And it appears, based on the most recent post, that I was exactly right.
At least do a little fucking research before you spout off.
"So reversing that descrimination makes it right?"
What the fuck are you talking about? Catholics are STILL discrimnated against, that's the point.
It's obvious from your reply that you're only interested in continually restating your position without justification. Nothing you've said refutes me in any way, and your rambling paragraph about Granny only proves my point.
I don't know why you think you've made a case for anything, but you haven't. You've only wasted my time, and you'll get no more.
"Anyway, if the government can track you by your ID card, then they don't need to resort to a bunch of illegal stuff to fight crime and terrorism, as it seems to be a habit lately."
So, why is it that you think giving your freedom up voluntarily is any better than having it snatched from you?
You've gotten used to your chains. I am truly sorry for you.
Customers are unhappy about
Ridiculous prices
Crying babies
Idiots in the audience who decide to narrate
Sticky floors and filthy seats
and
Cell phones
Did I miss anything? Fix that crap, and you won't have to worry about release schedules. There are still movies that need to be seen at theatres to get the full experience. But I simply won't put up with the rest of that crap, or theatres that tolerate it.
"Who's supposed to lead but smart people?"
Leaders. If you were smarter, you'd know that.
"So instead we have an increase in religious discrimination"
Catholics weren't discriminated against a hundred years ago? Of course they were.
"exploitation of anybody with a low income"
And that didn't happen previously, you know when there wasn't a 40 hour work week, no unions, no OSHA, etc?
"the inability to effectively protest without being labeled a terrorist"
Bonus riots, Haymarket riots, Kent State, etc. It's happened for hundreds of years.
"and people living to work not working to live."
Read this. I think you'll be amazed at how you've overstated your position, and at how little you know about the subject.
http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/1900/fam.html
The other guy is right. Things were much worse in the past. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make them better, but let's not act like we're living during the Inquisition.
Are you for US intervention
"Where the fuck was the US in the 50s, the 60s and the 70s when the smaller countries tried to throw off the Soviets? Where the fuck was the almighty US when tanks were smearing protesters in Budapest all over the streets?"
or against it?
"As for the rest of the world, I think the US record speaks for itself. Funding death squads in Latin America in the name of anti-communist ideology, or napalming thousands of asian people for the same reason, that's nothing to be proud of."
Well, which is it? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound bitching about not intervening and intervening in the same post?
If we're taking our cues from South Park, then in reagrds to the above post, I'll quote this bit if wisdom
"Shut your fucking face..."
It seemed about as appropriate as your quote.
That slashtrolls like you are so quick with the irresponsible and inaccurate speculation? For example
"Why is it that if someone asserts that the US might be doing the same thing with Windows and other things -- mandated back doors, master keys, etc -- they get dismissed as paranoid cranks who are just bashing the US government."
Doesn't happen. You can claim otherwise, but whenever the subject comes up, there is widespread agreement that MS has most likely given the US government what it needs to gain covert access. Are you perhaps browsing at -1?
How can you make a comparison between a single Church (which, by the way, is exercising it's rights under the Constitution, something which they wouldn't be allowed to do in Iran because they're the wrong religion) and the entire government of a country?
It sickens me sometimes how far people will twist reality in order to demonstrate some supposed equivalency.
Read this
. html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger
Especially this part, in the FIRST PARAGRAPH
"Over a scratchy speaker, a researcher announces, "Jack, one of your electrodes is loose, we're coming in." The 500-pound steel door of the experimental chamber opens with a heavy whoosh; two technicians wearing white lab coats march in. They remove the Ping-Pong-ball halves taped over my eyes and carefully lift a yellow motorcycle helmet that's been retrofitted with electromagnetic field-emitting solenoids on the sides, aimed directly at my temples. Above the left hemisphere of my 42-year-old male brain, they locate the dangling electrode, needed to measure and track my brain waves. The researchers slather more conducting cream into the graying wisps of my red hair and press the securing tape hard into my scalp."
"It is more than obvious now that we there is a serious problem with some people having a suceptability to certian frequencies and that those frequencies may not be the same for everyone affected."
So, since it's more than obvious (huh? What is "more" than obvious?) you should have no trouble providing the peer reviewed research.
The fact that you've assumed something is more than obvious, despite a dearth of supporting research, calls your motives into question.
"The fact that experiments may not show true correlation for specific frequencies does not disprove the problems."
Really? I thought that's exactly what they showed. Silly me.
How can we take you seriously when you dismiss the research you don't like and drawn a conclusion you do like (based on NO research) all in the same post.
"Either way this does not refute Dr. Persinger's findings nor the existence of radio-controlled Japanese scientists."
What needs to be refuted? In the cases sited, the subjects are either being given direct electrical current, or are hooked to electrodes that direct the field into their brains. In neither case does the EM exposure resemble in any way what is being discussed in this article.
I appreciate that you've done as much research as you have, but I thik your problems with the current AIDS situation stem from your misunderstandings and not from problems with the facts.
Read the discussion, read the links, and decide for yourself. The good news is that your objections are dealt with. The bad news, for you at least,is that they are also pretty roundly refuted.
Decide for yourself, although I beleive you already have, so I may be wasting my time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_reappraisal
You should have looked it up yourself before making your off-topic post.
By reading the comments of slashtrolls?
It's always a lot of fun to do, but not the least bit informative most times. Add to that the fact that this article is about US politics (and is sensationalist tripe) and you'll uderstand why I disagree that he is informing himself at all.
"The more you watch the footage of 9/11, the more obvious the lies become. But don't take my word for it...do your own research."
I had two very close friends who were in visual range of the towers when this happened. I trust them with my life. They told me what happened and I beleive them.
You, on the other hand, are a notorious conspircay theorist and general shit talker, with absolutely ZERO credibility.
Frankly, sir, you're a liar, and the testimony of my friends is all the proof of that I need.
Many linguists disagree with Pinker, and he is by no means in the majority with his suppositions.
l anguagespeech/EvolLangFac_Cognition.pdf
I've read your posts. You seem to have been convinced by a very good writer that he has the inside track on the truth.
However, to give you some perspective, Noam Chomsky disagrees with him. He's not the only one.
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/publications/
Pinker did the same thing to you that he does to so many others. He convinced you with flowery porse that disguised the lack of empirical support for his idea of "evolutionary psychology".
Pinker isn't in the majority. How you could be a linguistics student and believe this is beyond me.
You know, there's nothing more hilarious than reading a rant by someone who didn't read the article.
Thanks for the giggle.
"Reversing his rhetorical field a bit, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre on Tuesday declared that his company won't try to block or degrade customers' access to Internet applications or content,"
and this
"Any provider who blocks access to the Internet is inviting customers to find another provider," Whitacre said in his keynote speech. "It's bad business." He then emphatically stated that AT&T would not block independent services, "nor will we degrade [Internet access]. Period, end of story."
Of course he could be lying, but you really shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Well, ideally you're paying for the ability to read articles like this. If you'd used that ability, you'd realize the submitter was making shit up, and in fact, the aticle say nothing remotely resembling what the submitter claimed.
"I imagine the Internet questioning gives them a great opportunity to prevent another Jennings"
Yes, I can't imagine why those silly Jeopardy people would want their show mentioned that much, or god forbid watched that much.
Ken Jennings got the Jeopardy people more press than they've had in years. What you've said makes no sense.