"So what you're telling me is that a terrorism investigator is going to walk into a hangar and make sense of plane parts strewn about randomly?"
Is that what I said, or did I say a reconstruction wasn't necessary. Why put words in my mouth?
"No, you at least have to have the parts of the same plane lying next to each other, with the parts lying where they would be if the planes were intact."
That is not a "reconstruction". If that is what you meant by "reconstruction" then you need to amend your usage of the term. If that is not what you meant by "reconstruction" then you have answered your own question.
"It would be like asking a fraud investigator to sift through papers out of order, lying in a pile on the floor, instead of in neat little manilla folders."
No, it wouldn't be anything like that at all, and analogies are garbage.
"Contrary to the moon landing conspiracy nuts, the makers of Loose Change have undeniable evidence that buildings were blown up by explosives."
How is it undeniable when it's been denied by experts? What you meant to say is "convincing evidence for those easily or already convinced".
"WTC 7 collapsed for no reason, and they have Larry Silverstein on tape saying that the building was 'pulled.'"
No, that's a lie. Here's what he actually said
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
It would serve you better to stick to the facts, and not embellish. That's why people don't listen to this nonsense. His statements are explained thusly
"Silverstein's spokesperson, McQuillan, later attempted to clarify:
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
McQuillan has commented that by "it", Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building."
Accept that explanation or don't. One makes perfect sense, one doesn't. You can decide which is which.
Now here's a question for you. How can we take anythig you said seriously when you misrepresent facts in order to bolster your argument. The answer of course is that we can't.
Just so I'm clear, why would anyone need to reconstruct the planes? What would be gained?
In the case of plane crashes, there is an obvious need because of the information gained about the specifics of the crash. No one really doubts what happens when a plane hits a building. What they doubt is that the planes hit at all. An accurate accounting of the debris should be sufficient to discredit that.
So, apart from satisfying your personal curiosity, and "debunking" conspiracy theories that will never really be dubunked, why would they invest that kind of time and resources?
"I saw one of the opening acts of our descent into a police state, right there."
No, what you actually saw were scared people who overreacted in response to a severe shock. Keep in mind those soldiers ar eyoung men, who just had their concept of American invulnerability destroyed.
"Human insulin is now manufactured for widespread clinical use using genetic engineering techniques, which significantly reduces impurity reaction problems. Eli Lilly marketed the first such insulin, Humulin, in 1982. Humulin was the first medication produced using modern genetic engineering techniques, in which actual human DNA is inserted into a host cell (E. coli in this case). The host cells are then allowed to grow and reproduce normally, and due to the inserted human DNA, they produce actual human insulin.
Genentech developed the technique Lilly used to produce Humulin. Novo Nordisk has also developed a genetically engineered insulin independently. Most insulins used clinically are produced this way, for they avoid most of the allergic reaction problem."
"It's about cranking out good little drones who will do their factory jobs"
What factory jobs? What America do you live in where there are any real factory jobs anymore?
Re:GuloGulo's back to his old tricks. Big surprise
on
"H-Prize" Announced
·
· Score: 1
"He didn't admit to the Straw Man fallacy, he expresed his surprise that you didn't groundlessly accuse him of engaging in it.
I had no idea you were psychic.
Let's use one of your tricks, smart guy. Occam's razor. Is it more likely he was "straw-manning" the benefits or that he knew me personally, knew "my tactics" as you call them, and was responding to an argument that he expected to be made?
Right.
As I've said before, you'll twist anything I say into something else, presumably because you have such excessive free time that you have nothing better to do than follow me around and attack me personally.
I genuinely think you're mentally ill. I feel very sorry for you, and I hope you seek treatment for it. Seriously, no flaming, but you need to see a professional. Your behavior is, frankly, irrational and inexplicable.
"I won't waste my time being trolled by you again."
How hard is it to read that? You'll notice at no time in this thread has any trolling been done by anyone but you.
So save your self righteous observations for the mods. I stopped listening to anything you said a long time ago.
"Faced with an opponent who was actually prepared to discuss the issue"
He openly admitted to arguing using logical fallacies. I love how you left that out, in your very sad attempt to troll me. Why? Didn't think that his "debate" style mattered during a debate?
"so to explain your bizzare behavior one must either assume you are a precocious eight-year old, or an adult who never had the chance to develop the normal coping mechanisms associated with emotional maturity."
Who's the one trolling again? That wouldn't be me, so that leaves...
In all honesty, I hope you do too. Realistically, it a bit silly to be arguing the benefits of two very different cultures as though they're equivalent.
My only hope is that you try a little harder to understand the policies of both countries, and I'll try to do the same.
I don't think you uderstand why I responded to you. I have no desire whatsoever to correct you and your ignorance.
My goal from posting was to give others information. Specifically so they could reject arguments like yours in the future.
"Now I'm a tad surprised that you're not jumping all over me for straw-manning the crap out of the benefits."
You shouldn't be. It was exactly that which made it clear to me that debating this with you would be a frustrating waste of time. I don't know why you'd be surprised that someone chooses not to descend into the muck with you.
Sincw when does my position matter to you? That last time we did this, you used logical fallacies and twisted my words until you had a straw man to attack.
No, not at all. It's no more creepy than swearing on a bible in court.
But, I'm not irrationally searching for any excuse to complain about privacy, and in the process dulling the amount of impact that objecting to real abuses will have.
I appreciate that you feel this way, but what's the point of posting it?
Do you think you're unmasking some big lie or something?
Voting does mean something. Local politicians get elected because of your vote. In fact, the more local the politician, the more closely tied to your vote they are.
So I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. Honestly, I don't think you are trying to make a point. Frankly, I think you're just bitching.
Slashdot Mirror
"So what you're telling me is that a terrorism investigator is going to walk into a hangar and make sense of plane parts strewn about randomly?"
Is that what I said, or did I say a reconstruction wasn't necessary. Why put words in my mouth?
"No, you at least have to have the parts of the same plane lying next to each other, with the parts lying where they would be if the planes were intact."
That is not a "reconstruction". If that is what you meant by "reconstruction" then you need to amend your usage of the term. If that is not what you meant by "reconstruction" then you have answered your own question.
"It would be like asking a fraud investigator to sift through papers out of order, lying in a pile on the floor, instead of in neat little manilla folders."
No, it wouldn't be anything like that at all, and analogies are garbage.
"Double oh yeah - my five year-old could shit out a more interesting /. posting."
Don't be so hard on yourself, your post wasn't that bad.
That's all true, and none of it addresses why reconstruction is necessary. Everything you suggest could be done without reconstructing anything.
"Contrary to the moon landing conspiracy nuts, the makers of Loose Change have undeniable evidence that buildings were blown up by explosives."
How is it undeniable when it's been denied by experts? What you meant to say is "convincing evidence for those easily or already convinced".
"WTC 7 collapsed for no reason, and they have Larry Silverstein on tape saying that the building was 'pulled.'"
No, that's a lie. Here's what he actually said
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
It would serve you better to stick to the facts, and not embellish. That's why people don't listen to this nonsense. His statements are explained thusly
"Silverstein's spokesperson, McQuillan, later attempted to clarify:
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
McQuillan has commented that by "it", Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building."
Accept that explanation or don't. One makes perfect sense, one doesn't. You can decide which is which.
Now here's a question for you. How can we take anythig you said seriously when you misrepresent facts in order to bolster your argument. The answer of course is that we can't.
Just so I'm clear, why would anyone need to reconstruct the planes? What would be gained?
In the case of plane crashes, there is an obvious need because of the information gained about the specifics of the crash. No one really doubts what happens when a plane hits a building. What they doubt is that the planes hit at all. An accurate accounting of the debris should be sufficient to discredit that.
So, apart from satisfying your personal curiosity, and "debunking" conspiracy theories that will never really be dubunked, why would they invest that kind of time and resources?
"So the government has no burden to put forward evidence that their story of events is what happened?"
It's not "their" story. This statement alone suggests that you have an unspoken agenda that you try to couch in non-specific language.
And no, they don't. The government doesn't have a responsibility to even have a story, only provide factual information.
"I saw one of the opening acts of our descent into a police state, right there."
No, what you actually saw were scared people who overreacted in response to a severe shock. Keep in mind those soldiers ar eyoung men, who just had their concept of American invulnerability destroyed.
You humans acting like humans.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
"Nice, mark me flamebait without reading through and coming up with a coherant argument against what I'm saying."
You're a nutjob, that's all the argument that's required.
People don't debate anything with the guy standing on the corner talking to himself because he's a kook.
You're the guy standing on the corner.
"What ifs? Is that meant to be imply some negative connotation to perfectly reasonable and serious concerns?"
No, but the concerns mentioned aren't reasonable or serious, they're idiotic and ridiculous.
And I will happily denounce idiotic and ridiculous postulations with no hesitation.
You're wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin#Timeline
"Human insulin is now manufactured for widespread clinical use using genetic engineering techniques, which significantly reduces impurity reaction problems. Eli Lilly marketed the first such insulin, Humulin, in 1982. Humulin was the first medication produced using modern genetic engineering techniques, in which actual human DNA is inserted into a host cell (E. coli in this case). The host cells are then allowed to grow and reproduce normally, and due to the inserted human DNA, they produce actual human insulin.
Genentech developed the technique Lilly used to produce Humulin. Novo Nordisk has also developed a genetically engineered insulin independently. Most insulins used clinically are produced this way, for they avoid most of the allergic reaction problem."
I love that you're so ridiculously naive that you believe the numbers released by the former USSR.
Actually, it amuses me, but scares the hell out of me at the same time. People like you get to vote...
Way to completely avoid the point and then appeal to emotion.
I suupose that what you have to do, since you have no real argument.
I guess you missed the hundreds of Supreme Court decisions that make that particular bit of philosophizing moot.
The court has determined that there are most certainly powers not listed in the Constitution that are in the purview of federal government.
Rant all you like, it's reality.
So you're arguing that the people in power will stay in power by... preparing kids to do jobs that no longer exist?
How is that going to help them stay in power?
Listen, I understand what you're trying to say (I think) but tying one to the other is... tenuous at best.
Care to clarify?
"It's about cranking out good little drones who will do their factory jobs"
What factory jobs? What America do you live in where there are any real factory jobs anymore?
"He didn't admit to the Straw Man fallacy, he expresed his surprise that you didn't groundlessly accuse him of engaging in it.
I had no idea you were psychic.
Let's use one of your tricks, smart guy. Occam's razor. Is it more likely he was "straw-manning" the benefits or that he knew me personally, knew "my tactics" as you call them, and was responding to an argument that he expected to be made?
Right.
As I've said before, you'll twist anything I say into something else, presumably because you have such excessive free time that you have nothing better to do than follow me around and attack me personally.
I genuinely think you're mentally ill. I feel very sorry for you, and I hope you seek treatment for it. Seriously, no flaming, but you need to see a professional. Your behavior is, frankly, irrational and inexplicable.
"Now I'm a tad surprised that you're not jumping all over me for straw-manning the crap out of the benefits. "
Right there. He said it. I wasn't kidding with the reading section.
"I won't waste my time being trolled by you again."
How hard is it to read that? You'll notice at no time in this thread has any trolling been done by anyone but you.
So save your self righteous observations for the mods. I stopped listening to anything you said a long time ago.
"Faced with an opponent who was actually prepared to discuss the issue"
He openly admitted to arguing using logical fallacies. I love how you left that out, in your very sad attempt to troll me. Why? Didn't think that his "debate" style mattered during a debate?
"so to explain your bizzare behavior one must either assume you are a precocious eight-year old, or an adult who never had the chance to develop the normal coping mechanisms associated with emotional maturity."
Who's the one trolling again? That wouldn't be me, so that leaves...
In all honesty, I hope you do too. Realistically, it a bit silly to be arguing the benefits of two very different cultures as though they're equivalent.
My only hope is that you try a little harder to understand the policies of both countries, and I'll try to do the same.
I don't think you uderstand why I responded to you. I have no desire whatsoever to correct you and your ignorance.
My goal from posting was to give others information. Specifically so they could reject arguments like yours in the future.
"Now I'm a tad surprised that you're not jumping all over me for straw-manning the crap out of the benefits."
You shouldn't be. It was exactly that which made it clear to me that debating this with you would be a frustrating waste of time. I don't know why you'd be surprised that someone chooses not to descend into the muck with you.
And I accept your admission.
"Is that really your position?"
Sincw when does my position matter to you? That last time we did this, you used logical fallacies and twisted my words until you had a straw man to attack.
I won't waste my time being trolled by you again.
"Voting means nothing to me because the only form of government I can accept is no government."
Ok, that makes more sense. You're one of those people...
"Creepy isn't it?"
No, not at all. It's no more creepy than swearing on a bible in court.
But, I'm not irrationally searching for any excuse to complain about privacy, and in the process dulling the amount of impact that objecting to real abuses will have.
"Voting means nothing"
I appreciate that you feel this way, but what's the point of posting it?
Do you think you're unmasking some big lie or something?
Voting does mean something. Local politicians get elected because of your vote. In fact, the more local the politician, the more closely tied to your vote they are.
So I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. Honestly, I don't think you are trying to make a point. Frankly, I think you're just bitching.