If stupidity can get us into trouble why can't it get us out?
(credit to Will Rogers)
There are 3 kinds of people in this world...
Some who learn by reading, the few who learn by watching others, and the rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.
Some who learn by reading, the few who learn by watching others, and the rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.
Tim vs. Storm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 9 2011, 04:22 AM)
The Storm person in your video, whilist charming, is purely fictional whereas the characters in my video are real. I must conclude therefor that my video is really stupid whereas your video is only hypothetically stupid. Therefor I declare myself the winner (so to speak).
Ali G is not "real"
And Kent Hovind went to prison for inability to cope with reality.
And Kent Hovind went to prison for inability to cope with reality.
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 11 2011, 01:17 AM)
Ali G is not "real"
And Kent Hovind went to prison for inability to cope with reality.
They think he's real - that should be good enough
Being in jail has never taken the shine off of anyone's stupidity.
And Kent Hovind went to prison for inability to cope with reality.
They think he's real - that should be good enough
Being in jail has never taken the shine off of anyone's stupidity.
This scientist thinks that 99 parts of good design mixed with one part of disorder equal "stupid design". This unperceptive, shallow analysis is stupid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGKRurORkCA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGKRurORkCA
QUOTE (no1nose+Apr 12 2011, 10:15 PM)
This scientist thinks that 99 parts of good design mixed with one part of disorder equal "stupid design". This unperceptive, shallow analysis is stupid.
Have you ever listened to a child when they proclaim that something is correct with absolute certainty, but they're dead wrong? You are that child.
Anyone who claims that DNA is anything but a complete mess is either lying or ignorant. There is no rhyme or reason to how DNA works. The only reason why it works at all is because DNA engineered itself over a billion years of evolution. DNA is a billion pairs of copy errors and damage, occasionally broken up by a few protein markers.
Have you ever listened to a child when they proclaim that something is correct with absolute certainty, but they're dead wrong? You are that child.
Anyone who claims that DNA is anything but a complete mess is either lying or ignorant. There is no rhyme or reason to how DNA works. The only reason why it works at all is because DNA engineered itself over a billion years of evolution. DNA is a billion pairs of copy errors and damage, occasionally broken up by a few protein markers.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Apr 13 2011, 03:23 AM)
Have you ever listened to a child when they proclaim that something is correct with absolute certainty, but they're dead wrong? You are that child.
Anyone who claims that DNA is anything but a complete mess is either lying or ignorant. There is no rhyme or reason to how DNA works. The only reason why it works at all is because DNA engineered itself over a billion years of evolution. DNA is a billion pairs of copy errors and damage, occasionally broken up by a few protein markers.
Ha! Ha! very funny - excellent shot!
Well done - it is so easy to believe that you are being serious!
I take my crown off to you - Hail the most stupid!!!!
Anyone who claims that DNA is anything but a complete mess is either lying or ignorant. There is no rhyme or reason to how DNA works. The only reason why it works at all is because DNA engineered itself over a billion years of evolution. DNA is a billion pairs of copy errors and damage, occasionally broken up by a few protein markers.
Ha! Ha! very funny - excellent shot!
Well done - it is so easy to believe that you are being serious!
I take my crown off to you - Hail the most stupid!!!!
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 9 2011, 07:03 AM)
There are 3 kinds of people in this world...
Some who learn by reading, the few who learn by watching others, and the rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.
Who fits the third category? I guess no1knows.
Some who learn by reading, the few who learn by watching others, and the rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.
Who fits the third category? I guess no1knows.
QUOTE (boit+Apr 13 2011, 07:19 AM)
Who fits the third category? I guess no1knows.
Most certainly. The answer, of course, is pi. That is, pi defined by a circle with a diameter of exactly 2 plank lengths. This being the case pi can only equal exactly 3.0. (and thus also proving that pi is not a constant). This then is the 3rd way.
Most certainly. The answer, of course, is pi. That is, pi defined by a circle with a diameter of exactly 2 plank lengths. This being the case pi can only equal exactly 3.0. (and thus also proving that pi is not a constant). This then is the 3rd way.
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 9 2011, 04:22 AM)
Tim vs. Storm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U
My favourite line:
"Science adjusts its views based on what it observes, Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." Tim Minchin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U
My favourite line:
"Science adjusts its views based on what it observes, Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." Tim Minchin
QUOTE (no1nose+Apr 13 2011, 03:15 AM)
This scientist thinks that 99 parts of good design mixed with one part of disorder equal "stupid design". This unperceptive, shallow analysis is stupid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGKRurORkCA
You obviously watched a different video. It was more like 99parts bad design with 1 part good design, = stupid design.
You clearly had your pre-conceived ideas before watching the video, so you saw something entirely different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGKRurORkCA
You obviously watched a different video. It was more like 99parts bad design with 1 part good design, = stupid design.
You clearly had your pre-conceived ideas before watching the video, so you saw something entirely different.
QUOTE (no1nose+Apr 13 2011, 04:15 AM)
This scientist thinks that 99 parts of good design mixed with one part of disorder equal "stupid design". This unperceptive, shallow analysis is stupid.
You're right, your analysis of the group effort of thousands of scientists across the globe over decades, even centuries, is unperceptive and shallow. Nice of you to admit it
You're right, your analysis of the group effort of thousands of scientists across the globe over decades, even centuries, is unperceptive and shallow. Nice of you to admit it
QUOTE (no1nose+Apr 13 2011, 04:15 AM)
They think he's real - that should be good enough
Nice religious mentality, "I think god is real, that should be enough".
Reason and evidence, that is what is important, not wishful thinking.
Reason and evidence, that is what is important, not wishful thinking.
QUOTE (no1nose+Apr 13 2011, 04:15 AM)
Most certainly. The answer, of course, is pi. That is, pi defined by a circle with a diameter of exactly 2 plank lengths. This being the case pi can only equal exactly 3.0. (and thus also proving that pi is not a constant). This then is the 3rd way.
You're simply making stuff up you know nothing about. The Planck scale is not a minimal length scale which discretises the universe, it's the scale quantum gravity cannot be ignored.
Besides, pi is pi, it is defined for Euclidean circles, not ones where space-time is heavily warped. It's possible to draw circles in curved space where the ratio of radius to circumference is anything you like but that doesn't mean pi then doesn't equal 3.1415.... .
As has been said, you give the impression you think you understand this stuff but really you don't. You should try for less shallow and unperceptive examinations of things.
Besides, pi is pi, it is defined for Euclidean circles, not ones where space-time is heavily warped. It's possible to draw circles in curved space where the ratio of radius to circumference is anything you like but that doesn't mean pi then doesn't equal 3.1415.... .
As has been said, you give the impression you think you understand this stuff but really you don't. You should try for less shallow and unperceptive examinations of things.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Apr 14 2011, 07:02 AM)
You're right, your analysis of the group effort of thousands of scientists across the globe over decades, even centuries, is unperceptive and shallow. Nice of you to admit it
Nice religious mentality, "I think god is real, that should be enough".
Reason and evidence, that is what is important, not wishful thinking.
You're simply making stuff up you know nothing about. The Planck scale is not a minimal length scale which discretises the universe, it's the scale quantum gravity cannot be ignored.
Besides, pi is pi, it is defined for Euclidean circles, not ones where space-time is heavily warped. It's possible to draw circles in curved space where the ratio of radius to circumference is anything you like but that doesn't mean pi then doesn't equal 3.1415.... .
As has been said, you give the impression you think you understand this stuff but really you don't. You should try for less shallow and unperceptive examinations of things.
Wow what a gold mine here of stupidity. Oh where to start???
"You're right, your analysis of the group effort of thousands of scientists across the globe over decades, even centuries, is unperceptive and shallow."
What an amazing assertion! Any evidence that thousands of scientists over the decades have come to this consensus? Of course not.
Next:
"Nice religious mentality, "I think god is real, that should be enough".
Reason and evidence, that is what is important, not wishful thinking."
Perhaps you didn't notice that all but one on the individuals in the video were pro evolution. They are the ones who were incredulous.
And finally:
"You're simply making stuff up you know nothing about. The Planck scale is not a minimal length scale which discretises the universe, it's the scale quantum gravity cannot be ignored.
Besides, pi is pi, it is defined for Euclidean circles, not ones where space-time is heavily warped. It's possible to draw circles in curved space where the ratio of radius to circumference is anything you like but that doesn't mean pi then doesn't equal 3.1415.... . '
If something is small then it is necessarily non Euclidean? Of course not.
Nice religious mentality, "I think god is real, that should be enough".
Reason and evidence, that is what is important, not wishful thinking.
You're simply making stuff up you know nothing about. The Planck scale is not a minimal length scale which discretises the universe, it's the scale quantum gravity cannot be ignored.
Besides, pi is pi, it is defined for Euclidean circles, not ones where space-time is heavily warped. It's possible to draw circles in curved space where the ratio of radius to circumference is anything you like but that doesn't mean pi then doesn't equal 3.1415.... .
As has been said, you give the impression you think you understand this stuff but really you don't. You should try for less shallow and unperceptive examinations of things.
Wow what a gold mine here of stupidity. Oh where to start???
"You're right, your analysis of the group effort of thousands of scientists across the globe over decades, even centuries, is unperceptive and shallow."
What an amazing assertion! Any evidence that thousands of scientists over the decades have come to this consensus? Of course not.
Next:
"Nice religious mentality, "I think god is real, that should be enough".
Reason and evidence, that is what is important, not wishful thinking."
Perhaps you didn't notice that all but one on the individuals in the video were pro evolution. They are the ones who were incredulous.
And finally:
"You're simply making stuff up you know nothing about. The Planck scale is not a minimal length scale which discretises the universe, it's the scale quantum gravity cannot be ignored.
Besides, pi is pi, it is defined for Euclidean circles, not ones where space-time is heavily warped. It's possible to draw circles in curved space where the ratio of radius to circumference is anything you like but that doesn't mean pi then doesn't equal 3.1415.... . '
If something is small then it is necessarily non Euclidean? Of course not.
QUOTE (no1nose+Apr 14 2011, 09:00 AM)
What an amazing assertion! Any evidence that thousands of scientists over the decades have come to this consensus? Of course not.
Are you saying that mainstream work isn't the result of many people working together over long periods of time to reach a consensus? You do know what universities are, right? Evolution worked on by thousands of scientists and has been for more than a century, with ever growing numbers to due increasing applications, many a technological break through and increased funding to science research.
Are you saying that mainstream work isn't the result of many people working together over long periods of time to reach a consensus? You do know what universities are, right? Evolution worked on by thousands of scientists and has been for more than a century, with ever growing numbers to due increasing applications, many a technological break through and increased funding to science research.
QUOTE (no1nose+Apr 14 2011, 09:00 AM)
Perhaps you didn't notice that all but one on the individuals in the video were pro evolution. They are the ones who were incredulous.
Evidence says otherwise. The many thousands of scientists and decades of work I just mentioned support evolution, so its hardly a display of incredulity to accept it as the best explanation of the available data.
QUOTE (no1nose+Apr 14 2011, 09:00 AM)
If something is small then it is necessarily non Euclidean? Of course not.
Where did I say that? I responded to your comment about the Planck length. The Planck length is not a minimal length scale. You said : "The answer, of course, is pi. That is, pi defined by a circle with a diameter of exactly 2 plank lengths. This being the case pi can only equal exactly 3.0. (and thus also proving that pi is not a constant). This then is the 3rd way. ". Lengths of 2pi Planck lengths are possible, so saying "What about a circle of radius 1 Planck length?" doesn't imply the 'circle' has circumference 2*3 Planck lengths. Further more, even if you were right about that it doesn't mean pi is variable. Pi is a specific number. Yes, you can associate it to a geometric construction in Euclidean geometry and then ask about similar constructions in non-Euclidean geometry but its equivalent in the non-Euclidean work isn't pi, its just the ratio of two length.
And your comment about stupidity in my post is itself stupid. Firstly you say there's no large scale collection of research in evolution and claim researchers in it are incredulous, which are demonstratably false. Then you get into the geometry of Planck scale physics, which you demonstrate you don't understand. And guess what my PhD was on? Geometry of Planck scale spaces!
And your comment about stupidity in my post is itself stupid. Firstly you say there's no large scale collection of research in evolution and claim researchers in it are incredulous, which are demonstratably false. Then you get into the geometry of Planck scale physics, which you demonstrate you don't understand. And guess what my PhD was on? Geometry of Planck scale spaces!
"And guess what my PhD was on? Geometry of Planck scale spaces! "
Hey I am interested - is it published on the net?
Hey I am interested - is it published on the net?
QUOTE (no1nose+Apr 15 2011, 04:31 AM)
"And guess what my PhD was on? Geometry of Planck scale spaces! "
Hey I am interested - is it published on the net?
Oh dear no reply . . . . but then I found this on Alpha's feedback:
"How many times have you NOT proven your claim of your status. It would be very simple. I choose the pose, you choose the diploma(s)/certificate(s) then an added flair referencing the forum/forum member(s)."
[Moderator: Suspended 40 days for quoting atypical (outlier) feedback as if it were an authority. That's simply too dishonest to be an admissible tactic on any forum.
Precursor562 posted from 2006-2008, was warned twice for foul language by the previous moderator, and the last post was riddled with inaccuracies.
Also, scientific papers are published in journals, most of which require you to pay to see the published versions of papers online. Since people equate Internet and Free, this may not satisfy everyone's definition of "on the net". AlphaNumeric has papers in the well-repected journals Physical Review and Journal of High Energy Physics as well as his Ph.D. thesis on the net. Here is a related paper (not AlphaNumeric's) which I cite to emphasize the very large gap between where you are in physics and the state of the art where AlphaNumeric published: http://iopscience.iop.org/1126-6708/2009/08/018 ]
Hey I am interested - is it published on the net?
Oh dear no reply . . . . but then I found this on Alpha's feedback:
"How many times have you NOT proven your claim of your status. It would be very simple. I choose the pose, you choose the diploma(s)/certificate(s) then an added flair referencing the forum/forum member(s)."
[Moderator: Suspended 40 days for quoting atypical (outlier) feedback as if it were an authority. That's simply too dishonest to be an admissible tactic on any forum.
Precursor562 posted from 2006-2008, was warned twice for foul language by the previous moderator, and the last post was riddled with inaccuracies.
Also, scientific papers are published in journals, most of which require you to pay to see the published versions of papers online. Since people equate Internet and Free, this may not satisfy everyone's definition of "on the net". AlphaNumeric has papers in the well-repected journals Physical Review and Journal of High Energy Physics as well as his Ph.D. thesis on the net. Here is a related paper (not AlphaNumeric's) which I cite to emphasize the very large gap between where you are in physics and the state of the art where AlphaNumeric published: http://iopscience.iop.org/1126-6708/2009/08/018 ]
QUOTE (no1nose+Apr 15 2011, 09:20 AM)
Oh dear no reply
I apologise for having other things to do with my life other than be at your beck and call.
Yes, my work is published, both in journals and available on www.arxiv.org. There's no point in linking you to it because I am certain you wouldn't understand them.
I apologise for having other things to do with my life other than be at your beck and call.
Yes, my work is published, both in journals and available on www.arxiv.org. There's no point in linking you to it because I am certain you wouldn't understand them.
QUOTE (no1nose+Apr 15 2011, 09:20 AM)
How many times have you NOT proven your claim of your status. It would be very simple. I choose the pose, you choose the diploma(s)/certificate(s) then an added flair referencing the forum/forum member(s)." ohmy.gif
Actually I have posted a picture of my degree certificate in the past. I've also posted links to my (at the time) university web page, pictures of me rowing for my Cambridge college (3rd boat, I wasn't very good) and also even my papers. I can't provide actual pictures of my degree certificate, masters certificate and PhD certificate right now because they are framed and hanging on the wall in my parent's house the other side of the country.
The person you are quoting, Precursor, was a massive hack. He claimed to know quantum field theory and seeing as I was doing some QFT for my PhD I asked him to demonstrate his claims. He failed utterly. Not only that he demonstrated he didn't even know the mathematics required to get on the degree he claimed I don't have. Precursor was ignorant, dishonest and delusional about his understanding.
And I'm sure you'd just say "Oh that doesn't count" even if I did provide a picture. I did that to show an ex-poster here, Kaneda, and he said "That's fake!". He said that despite not knowing what a Cambridge degree looks like and he didn't bother to check, even when I said "Feel free to check with Cambridge, that's what they look like". He was just looking for any excuse to not accept I actually know what I'm talking about, just as it seems you are. If I linked to a PhD or a paper of mine you could just easily say "How do I know that's you?". Rpenner knows who I am and he's said as much in the edited post of yours. The paper he links to is not one of mine but, as he says, serves to illustrate the staggeringly huge gap between the sort of stuff I've and what you understand.
The person you are quoting, Precursor, was a massive hack. He claimed to know quantum field theory and seeing as I was doing some QFT for my PhD I asked him to demonstrate his claims. He failed utterly. Not only that he demonstrated he didn't even know the mathematics required to get on the degree he claimed I don't have. Precursor was ignorant, dishonest and delusional about his understanding.
And I'm sure you'd just say "Oh that doesn't count" even if I did provide a picture. I did that to show an ex-poster here, Kaneda, and he said "That's fake!". He said that despite not knowing what a Cambridge degree looks like and he didn't bother to check, even when I said "Feel free to check with Cambridge, that's what they look like". He was just looking for any excuse to not accept I actually know what I'm talking about, just as it seems you are. If I linked to a PhD or a paper of mine you could just easily say "How do I know that's you?". Rpenner knows who I am and he's said as much in the edited post of yours. The paper he links to is not one of mine but, as he says, serves to illustrate the staggeringly huge gap between the sort of stuff I've and what you understand.
QUOTE (no1nose+Apr 15 2011, 08:20 AM)
Oh dear no reply . . . . but then I found this on Alpha's feedback:
"How many times have you NOT proven your claim of your status. It would be very simple. I choose the pose, you choose the diploma(s)/certificate(s) then an added flair referencing the forum/forum member(s)."
you know I have seen AlphaNumeric's papers, on another forum, he told me i wouldn't understand them, he was right (i hope to someday). I would like to apologize to him for saying that it was an unsubstantiated claim. it is not. He really is a highly skilled mathematician and theoretical physicist with a phD.
"How many times have you NOT proven your claim of your status. It would be very simple. I choose the pose, you choose the diploma(s)/certificate(s) then an added flair referencing the forum/forum member(s)."
you know I have seen AlphaNumeric's papers, on another forum, he told me i wouldn't understand them, he was right (i hope to someday). I would like to apologize to him for saying that it was an unsubstantiated claim. it is not. He really is a highly skilled mathematician and theoretical physicist with a phD.
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+May 27 2011, 08:04 AM)
you know I have seen AlphaNumeric's papers, on another forum, he told me i wouldn't understand them, he was right (i hope to someday). I would like to apologize to him for saying that it was an unsubstantiated claim. it is not. He really is a highly skilled mathematician and theoretical physicist with a phD.
Ok, that was kinda of dumb - but AronRa is really much dumber.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plnwMNBm9z4
Ok, that was kinda of dumb - but AronRa is really much dumber.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plnwMNBm9z4
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+May 27 2011, 09:04 AM)
you know I have seen AlphaNumeric's papers, on another forum, he told me i wouldn't understand them, he was right (i hope to someday). I would like to apologize to him for saying that it was an unsubstantiated claim. it is not. He really is a highly skilled mathematician and theoretical physicist with a phD.
Wait, so are you Precursor or am I getting my wires crossed here?
Not that it has anything to do with me or my work but AronRa is obviously a very well read and competent scientist, or scientist in training.
hmmm
Are you saying that AronRa is not one of your sock puppets?
Wait, so are you Precursor or am I getting my wires crossed here?
QUOTE (no1nose+May 27 2011, 10:11 AM)
Ok, that was kinda of dumb - but AronRa is really much dumber.
Not that it has anything to do with me or my work but AronRa is obviously a very well read and competent scientist, or scientist in training.
Thus far you've demonstrated you aren't interested in science or intellectual honesty or anything remotely related to those things.
Tell me, did you understand the paper Rpenner linked you to? You said you were interested, have you look at it? As Rpenner says, that isn't my work but its in the same area I did my PhD in, supergravity and string theory. I think.... sorry, I know you don't understand it, hence why even if you hadn't acted like a complete tool it'd be pointless linking to my work. Just as with AronRa's work, you're in over your head with my work and yet you don't want to face up to that fact.
You clearly aren't cut out for science. Or basic rational thought it would seem.
Not that it has anything to do with me or my work but AronRa is obviously a very well read and competent scientist, or scientist in training.
Thus far you've demonstrated you aren't interested in science or intellectual honesty or anything remotely related to those things.
Tell me, did you understand the paper Rpenner linked you to? You said you were interested, have you look at it? As Rpenner says, that isn't my work but its in the same area I did my PhD in, supergravity and string theory. I think.... sorry, I know you don't understand it, hence why even if you hadn't acted like a complete tool it'd be pointless linking to my work. Just as with AronRa's work, you're in over your head with my work and yet you don't want to face up to that fact.
You clearly aren't cut out for science. Or basic rational thought it would seem.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 27 2011, 09:47 AM)
Wait, so are you Precursor or am I getting my wires crossed here?
no you're getting your your wires crossed. said it on one of the rossi threads. if i remember correctly you handed me my *** for saying it. lol.
no you're getting your your wires crossed. said it on one of the rossi threads. if i remember correctly you handed me my *** for saying it. lol.
If this was supposed to be a puzzling question then I shud say " The thrust needed to achieve the esacpe velocity for stupidity" is actually rocket science. So not a job for stupids I guess 
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 27 2011, 09:47 AM)
Not that it has anything to do with me or my work but AronRa is obviously a very well read and competent scientist, or scientist in training.
hmmm
Are you saying that AronRa is not one of your sock puppets?
QUOTE (no1nose+May 27 2011, 10:03 PM)
hmmm
Are you saying that AronRa is not one of your sock puppets?
What a completely random question. Of course I'm saying that, particularly since I don't have any sock puppets. Why would you even think I was saying otherwise or that one of us is a sock puppet for the other. We couldn't even be sock puppets of each other because only one of us has an account here. You need two accounts to have a sock puppet. I am subscribed to AronRa on YouTube and find him extremely intelligent and witty.
Wow you're thick.
Are you saying that AronRa is not one of your sock puppets?
What a completely random question. Of course I'm saying that, particularly since I don't have any sock puppets. Why would you even think I was saying otherwise or that one of us is a sock puppet for the other. We couldn't even be sock puppets of each other because only one of us has an account here. You need two accounts to have a sock puppet. I am subscribed to AronRa on YouTube and find him extremely intelligent and witty.
Wow you're thick.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 28 2011, 09:14 AM)
What a completely random question. Of course I'm saying that, particularly since I don't have any sock puppets. Why would you even think I was saying otherwise or that one of us is a sock puppet for the other. We couldn't even be sock puppets of each other because only one of us has an account here. You need two accounts to have a sock puppet. I am subscribed to AronRa on YouTube and find him extremely intelligent and witty.
Wow you're thick.
Kinda dumb logic I guess - but lacks the sparkle of being truly stupid. Must give you a thumbs up for the bit about AronRa and calling me "thick" - immature and childish and qualifies as stupid for an adult.
Wow you're thick.
Kinda dumb logic I guess - but lacks the sparkle of being truly stupid. Must give you a thumbs up for the bit about AronRa and calling me "thick" - immature and childish and qualifies as stupid for an adult.
Wait, are you saying you're better at this science/reality/evidence discussion thing than AlphaNumeric?
QUOTE (Philip J. Fry+)
Oh, I was confused because the scoreboard says something different.
QUOTE (no1nose+May 28 2011, 12:07 PM)
and calling me "thick" - immature and childish and qualifies as stupid for an adult.
Given your comments about pi, religion, science in general, AronRa, myself and your general incoherence I would say that I'm not so much pulling an insult out of thin air as stating a justifiable conclusion based on evidence.
If you think 'thick' is not high brow enough than I can refine it to the statement "I think that you have an unjustified and incorrect view of your own competency and understanding of science, including (but not limited to) geometry and mathematics, based on what you said about pi, and evolutionary biology, based on what you said about AronRa. I think you lack basic communication skills, based on your somewhat random posting style, and I think you are not very well read, based on your posts in general."
That more to your liking?
Given your comments about pi, religion, science in general, AronRa, myself and your general incoherence I would say that I'm not so much pulling an insult out of thin air as stating a justifiable conclusion based on evidence.
If you think 'thick' is not high brow enough than I can refine it to the statement "I think that you have an unjustified and incorrect view of your own competency and understanding of science, including (but not limited to) geometry and mathematics, based on what you said about pi, and evolutionary biology, based on what you said about AronRa. I think you lack basic communication skills, based on your somewhat random posting style, and I think you are not very well read, based on your posts in general."
That more to your liking?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 28 2011, 07:12 PM)
Given your comments about pi, religion, science in general, AronRa, myself and your general incoherence I would say that I'm not so much pulling an insult out of thin air as stating a justifiable conclusion based on evidence.
If you think 'thick' is not high brow enough than I can refine it to the statement "I think that you have an unjustified and incorrect view of your own competency and understanding of science, including (but not limited to) geometry and mathematics, based on what you said about pi, and evolutionary biology, based on what you said about AronRa. I think you lack basic communication skills, based on your somewhat random posting style, and I think you are not very well read, based on your posts in general."
That more to your liking?
"Stop stealing ideas from 'The Matrix'. Get your own." [Moderator: Suspended 20 days for lying.]
AlphaNumeric
Now that was dumb.
But it was revealing too.
So you watched the "Matrix" enough times for it to be etched in you memory. And while you are not watching the Matrix you spend 12 hours a day on physforum.
And while you are not watching DVDs and hanging out here you are a important scientist doing important scientist thingies.
Ok I believe you hang around on physforum and watch DVD's and probably Xbox or PS3 occupy big parts of your life. But are you an important scientist doing important scientist thingies . . . well no not really
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdta4V8aOoM
If you think 'thick' is not high brow enough than I can refine it to the statement "I think that you have an unjustified and incorrect view of your own competency and understanding of science, including (but not limited to) geometry and mathematics, based on what you said about pi, and evolutionary biology, based on what you said about AronRa. I think you lack basic communication skills, based on your somewhat random posting style, and I think you are not very well read, based on your posts in general."
That more to your liking?
"Stop stealing ideas from 'The Matrix'. Get your own." [Moderator: Suspended 20 days for lying.]
AlphaNumeric
Now that was dumb.
But it was revealing too.
So you watched the "Matrix" enough times for it to be etched in you memory. And while you are not watching the Matrix you spend 12 hours a day on physforum.
And while you are not watching DVDs and hanging out here you are a important scientist doing important scientist thingies.
Ok I believe you hang around on physforum and watch DVD's and probably Xbox or PS3 occupy big parts of your life. But are you an important scientist doing important scientist thingies . . . well no not really
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdta4V8aOoM
QUOTE (no1nose+May 28 2011, 10:26 PM)
"Stop stealing ideas from 'The Matrix'. Get your own."
Thanks for demonstrating my point about your inability to engage in coherent discussion. It took me a few moments of thinking "Where on Earth has that come from?" to realise that you've gotten it from someone's feedback page where I've left a comment. What are you doing, trawling through everyone's feedback for comments I've left in order to try and come up with something you can insult me with?
This only serves to illustrate your poor communication skills and lack of imagination. Can't you respond to things I've said to you directly?
Thanks for demonstrating my point about your inability to engage in coherent discussion. It took me a few moments of thinking "Where on Earth has that come from?" to realise that you've gotten it from someone's feedback page where I've left a comment. What are you doing, trawling through everyone's feedback for comments I've left in order to try and come up with something you can insult me with?
This only serves to illustrate your poor communication skills and lack of imagination. Can't you respond to things I've said to you directly?
QUOTE (no1nose+May 28 2011, 10:26 PM)
So you watched the "Matrix" enough times for it to be etched in you memory. And while you are not watching the Matrix you spend 12 hours a day on physforum.
How did you reach that conclusion from a single feedback comment? Is it necessary for someone to watch a film 12 hours a day repeatedly in order to be familiar with the plot or concepts in the film?
Is that comment a reflection on your own memory's capabilities? Is that the only way you can remember things about films? I find most people can remember basic themes or plot lines from films they have seen, particularly ones which are as well known as The Matrix.
As for time spent on PhysForums, dipping in and out of it on my day off (today being Saturday) is hardly on it 12 hours straight. If you must know I spent a number of hours today out looking at places around the city I currently live in for the purpose of scouting out a new place to live in.
Is that comment a reflection on your own memory's capabilities? Is that the only way you can remember things about films? I find most people can remember basic themes or plot lines from films they have seen, particularly ones which are as well known as The Matrix.
As for time spent on PhysForums, dipping in and out of it on my day off (today being Saturday) is hardly on it 12 hours straight. If you must know I spent a number of hours today out looking at places around the city I currently live in for the purpose of scouting out a new place to live in.
QUOTE (no1nose+May 28 2011, 10:26 PM)
And while you are not watching DVDs and hanging out here you are a important scientist doing important scientist thingies.
Ok I believe you hang around on physforum and watch DVD's and probably Xbox or PS3 occupy big parts of your life. But are you an important scientist doing important scientist thingies . . . well no not really
Ok I believe you hang around on physforum and watch DVD's and probably Xbox or PS3 occupy big parts of your life. But are you an important scientist doing important scientist thingies . . . well no not really
I own 2 or 3 DVDs, I don't generally use them to watch films or go out of my way to sit down in front of the TV and put a film on. I do not own an Xbox or a PS (1, 2 or 3) either. I own a Wii but I don't think it's been used in close to a year.
I am not an 'important scientist' and I've never claimed to be but I do do 'scientist thingies'. You're now just clutching at straws to try and insult me because you can't come up with something valid and coherent to respond to my corrections of you. I pointed out your mistake about Planck length geometry and rather than accepting it (you know full well you aren't familiar with this stuff) you're desperate to throw and insult and have it stick. Both Rpenner and bar_room_physist have confirmed that I have indeed got published papers and a PhD. Given your unhinged nature I am not particularly bothered about linking you to them, as I'd rather you not know who I am (not that I'm anyone important). However, if you wish to discuss the details of my PhD research I'll be happy to answer any questions.
To let you know what to Google I'll give you a list of my papers' topics. I coauthored a paper on broken chiral symmetry in the AdS/CFT correspondence, a paper on dualities in flux compactifications and I was the sole author of a paper on generalised twisted Calabi-Yaus formed under mirror symmetry. You've got 20 days suspension so if you Google hard enough you might even manage to narrow down who I am but that would probably require a modicum of understanding of the topics involved. Still, that's enough for you to Google around and come up with some questions if you wish to test my understanding. I'd ask you a science question to see how much Planck geometry you understand but we both know you wouldn't answer it.
As for the 'scientist thingies' I do at the moment my job is doing science research, 'researcher' is in my job title. I know its hard for you to fathom but its possible to do 8~10 hours of work a day and still have time left over to do other things. Posting on forums is one of the things I do. I could go into a list of other things I spend my time doing but no doubt you'd not listen or care anyway, you've clearly already invented an entire narrative to my life.
If all you can do is say "OMG you must watch DVDs all the time!! You've memorised The Matrix!!" then I think that says a lot more about you than it does about me. I suggest you spend less time memorising your holy book and more time memorising a science book.
I am not an 'important scientist' and I've never claimed to be but I do do 'scientist thingies'. You're now just clutching at straws to try and insult me because you can't come up with something valid and coherent to respond to my corrections of you. I pointed out your mistake about Planck length geometry and rather than accepting it (you know full well you aren't familiar with this stuff) you're desperate to throw and insult and have it stick. Both Rpenner and bar_room_physist have confirmed that I have indeed got published papers and a PhD. Given your unhinged nature I am not particularly bothered about linking you to them, as I'd rather you not know who I am (not that I'm anyone important). However, if you wish to discuss the details of my PhD research I'll be happy to answer any questions.
To let you know what to Google I'll give you a list of my papers' topics. I coauthored a paper on broken chiral symmetry in the AdS/CFT correspondence, a paper on dualities in flux compactifications and I was the sole author of a paper on generalised twisted Calabi-Yaus formed under mirror symmetry. You've got 20 days suspension so if you Google hard enough you might even manage to narrow down who I am but that would probably require a modicum of understanding of the topics involved. Still, that's enough for you to Google around and come up with some questions if you wish to test my understanding. I'd ask you a science question to see how much Planck geometry you understand but we both know you wouldn't answer it.
As for the 'scientist thingies' I do at the moment my job is doing science research, 'researcher' is in my job title. I know its hard for you to fathom but its possible to do 8~10 hours of work a day and still have time left over to do other things. Posting on forums is one of the things I do. I could go into a list of other things I spend my time doing but no doubt you'd not listen or care anyway, you've clearly already invented an entire narrative to my life.
If all you can do is say "OMG you must watch DVDs all the time!! You've memorised The Matrix!!" then I think that says a lot more about you than it does about me. I suggest you spend less time memorising your holy book and more time memorising a science book.
What if Google is actually contributing to his nature of stupidity? What if he is trapped in his “Mecca of ignorance” by information walls? What if he is trying to learn but his search engine is preventing it?
According to Eli Pariser, this may be exactly what is happening with the filter bubble. It’s sounds great to have your searches personally tailored for you. Most of us assume that we have access to world knowledge at our finger tips but our view of the world is getting narrower. Algorithms are deciding what people see and don’t see, which is fine for shopping, but NOT when it comes to what’s going on in the world. I’m guessing that going incognito isn’t going to help.
Just sayin
http://www.thefilterbubble.com/ted-talk
According to Eli Pariser, this may be exactly what is happening with the filter bubble. It’s sounds great to have your searches personally tailored for you. Most of us assume that we have access to world knowledge at our finger tips but our view of the world is getting narrower. Algorithms are deciding what people see and don’t see, which is fine for shopping, but NOT when it comes to what’s going on in the world. I’m guessing that going incognito isn’t going to help.
Just sayin
http://www.thefilterbubble.com/ted-talk
QUOTE (no1nose+Apr 9 2011, 02:55 AM)
If stupidity can get us into trouble why can't it get us out?
(credit to Will Rogers)
Simple, because stupidity is not the answer...
(credit to Will Rogers)
Simple, because stupidity is not the answer...
"Stop stealing ideas from 'The Matrix'. Get your own." [Moderator: Suspended 20 days for lying.]
AlphaNumeric
I was banned for 20 days for supposedly lying but then in the very next post AlphaNumeric admitted that he had said what I had quoted:
"Stop stealing ideas from 'The Matrix'. Get your own."
Thanks for demonstrating my point about your inability to engage in coherent discussion. It took me a few moments of thinking "Where on Earth has that come from?" to realise that you've gotten it from someone's feedback page where I've left a comment. What are you doing, trawling through everyone's feedback for comments I've left in order to try and come up with something you can insult me with?
AlphaNumeric
Kinda stupid but still average.
AlphaNumeric
I was banned for 20 days for supposedly lying but then in the very next post AlphaNumeric admitted that he had said what I had quoted:
"Stop stealing ideas from 'The Matrix'. Get your own."
Thanks for demonstrating my point about your inability to engage in coherent discussion. It took me a few moments of thinking "Where on Earth has that come from?" to realise that you've gotten it from someone's feedback page where I've left a comment. What are you doing, trawling through everyone's feedback for comments I've left in order to try and come up with something you can insult me with?
AlphaNumeric
Kinda stupid but still average.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 18 2011, 05:04 AM)
"Stop stealing ideas from 'The Matrix'. Get your own." [Moderator: Suspended 20 days for lying.]
AlphaNumeric
I was banned for 20 days for supposedly lying but then in the very next post AlphaNumeric admitted that he had said what I had quoted:
"Stop stealing ideas from 'The Matrix'. Get your own."
I couldn't tell you whose feedback I left that on and it took me a while to realise you were even quoting a feedback comment I'd made. Yes, you didn't lie but you did precisely what I commented on, which was fail to form a coherent post. If you had said "I found this comment of yours on someone's feedback...." then it would have at least been clear to everyone what you were quoting. Few people (myself included) would realise you were quoting a feedback comment of mine.
As for lying, you did. You accused me of spending 12 hours a day on PhysForums, of watching The Matrix again and again, of playing PS3 or XBox or watching DVDs all the time and of lying about my PhD. None of that was true, you simply fabricated it all to try to insult me. As such your ban for lying was entirely justified, you lied repeatedly.
Kinda stupid but still average.
AlphaNumeric
I was banned for 20 days for supposedly lying but then in the very next post AlphaNumeric admitted that he had said what I had quoted:
"Stop stealing ideas from 'The Matrix'. Get your own."
I couldn't tell you whose feedback I left that on and it took me a while to realise you were even quoting a feedback comment I'd made. Yes, you didn't lie but you did precisely what I commented on, which was fail to form a coherent post. If you had said "I found this comment of yours on someone's feedback...." then it would have at least been clear to everyone what you were quoting. Few people (myself included) would realise you were quoting a feedback comment of mine.
As for lying, you did. You accused me of spending 12 hours a day on PhysForums, of watching The Matrix again and again, of playing PS3 or XBox or watching DVDs all the time and of lying about my PhD. None of that was true, you simply fabricated it all to try to insult me. As such your ban for lying was entirely justified, you lied repeatedly.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 18 2011, 05:04 AM)
Kinda stupid but still average.
I like how you're trying to play the "I'm more witty than you" card. You trawl through people's feedbacks for things I've said and from a single comment of mine you assume a bunch of untrue things about me.
Did you spend any of your 20 days away searching the scientific literature for the things I mentioned? I said I'd be willing to discuss those areas with you, as I have work on them published in reputable journals.
I offer to engage you in rational discussion and all you can come back with are lies and attempts at being patronising. Here's a tip, in order to legitimately talk down to someone on a subject you have to clearly be superior to them in regards to said subject. I would be surprised if you could pass a high school physics exam and judging from your somewhat incoherent posts your literary skills aren't too hot either. As such trying to insult someone with a doctorate for supposedly being lazy and wasting their time is 'kinda stupid'.
As I said before, you need to spend a little less time with your head in a bible and a little more time in the real world.
Did you spend any of your 20 days away searching the scientific literature for the things I mentioned? I said I'd be willing to discuss those areas with you, as I have work on them published in reputable journals.
I offer to engage you in rational discussion and all you can come back with are lies and attempts at being patronising. Here's a tip, in order to legitimately talk down to someone on a subject you have to clearly be superior to them in regards to said subject. I would be surprised if you could pass a high school physics exam and judging from your somewhat incoherent posts your literary skills aren't too hot either. As such trying to insult someone with a doctorate for supposedly being lazy and wasting their time is 'kinda stupid'.
As I said before, you need to spend a little less time with your head in a bible and a little more time in the real world.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jun 18 2011, 06:14 PM)
I couldn't tell you whose feedback I left that on and it took me a while to realise you were even quoting a feedback comment I'd made. Yes, you didn't lie but you did precisely what I commented on, which was fail to form a coherent post. If you had said "I found this comment of yours on someone's feedback...." then it would have at least been clear to everyone what you were quoting. Few people (myself included) would realise you were quoting a feedback comment of mine.
As for lying, you did. You accused me of spending 12 hours a day on PhysForums, of watching The Matrix again and again, of playing PS3 or XBox or watching DVDs all the time and of lying about my PhD. None of that was true, you simply fabricated it all to try to insult me. As such your ban for lying was entirely justified, you lied repeatedly.
I like how you're trying to play the "I'm more witty than you" card. You trawl through people's feedbacks for things I've said and from a single comment of mine you assume a bunch of untrue things about me.
Did you spend any of your 20 days away searching the scientific literature for the things I mentioned? I said I'd be willing to discuss those areas with you, as I have work on them published in reputable journals.
I offer to engage you in rational discussion and all you can come back with are lies and attempts at being patronising. Here's a tip, in order to legitimately talk down to someone on a subject you have to clearly be superior to them in regards to said subject. I would be surprised if you could pass a high school physics exam and judging from your somewhat incoherent posts your literary skills aren't too hot either. As such trying to insult someone with a doctorate for supposedly being lazy and wasting their time is 'kinda stupid'.
As I said before, you need to spend a little less time with your head in a bible and a little more time in the real world.hD
Wow! that was really stupid! Thank you for the laughs.
I would be happy to read through one of your papers but you won't tell people who you are. I don't think you can have it both ways. On one hand you are anonymous and so equal with everyone else. But then you don't want to be equal with everyone else so you are some important PhD.
Please don't take out your frustrations on me - I am only pointing out the obvious and while that may be stupid - that's OK on this thread.
Shall we wait for "Zorro" now?
As for lying, you did. You accused me of spending 12 hours a day on PhysForums, of watching The Matrix again and again, of playing PS3 or XBox or watching DVDs all the time and of lying about my PhD. None of that was true, you simply fabricated it all to try to insult me. As such your ban for lying was entirely justified, you lied repeatedly.
I like how you're trying to play the "I'm more witty than you" card. You trawl through people's feedbacks for things I've said and from a single comment of mine you assume a bunch of untrue things about me.
Did you spend any of your 20 days away searching the scientific literature for the things I mentioned? I said I'd be willing to discuss those areas with you, as I have work on them published in reputable journals.
I offer to engage you in rational discussion and all you can come back with are lies and attempts at being patronising. Here's a tip, in order to legitimately talk down to someone on a subject you have to clearly be superior to them in regards to said subject. I would be surprised if you could pass a high school physics exam and judging from your somewhat incoherent posts your literary skills aren't too hot either. As such trying to insult someone with a doctorate for supposedly being lazy and wasting their time is 'kinda stupid'.
As I said before, you need to spend a little less time with your head in a bible and a little more time in the real world.hD
Wow! that was really stupid! Thank you for the laughs.
I would be happy to read through one of your papers but you won't tell people who you are. I don't think you can have it both ways. On one hand you are anonymous and so equal with everyone else. But then you don't want to be equal with everyone else so you are some important PhD.
Please don't take out your frustrations on me - I am only pointing out the obvious and while that may be stupid - that's OK on this thread.
Shall we wait for "Zorro" now?
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 18 2011, 09:29 PM)
I would be happy to read through one of your papers but you won't tell people who you are.
Some people here, such as Rpenner and bar_room_physicist do know who I am and have confirmed in this thread I am not lying about having a PhD. As I said, I find you sufficiently unhinged I'd rather not give my name. I'm no one important but never the less....
Some people here, such as Rpenner and bar_room_physicist do know who I am and have confirmed in this thread I am not lying about having a PhD. As I said, I find you sufficiently unhinged I'd rather not give my name. I'm no one important but never the less....
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 18 2011, 09:29 PM)
On one hand you are anonymous and so equal with everyone else. But then you don't want to be equal with everyone else so you are some important PhD.
I never said I am 'some important PhD', I said I have a PhD. Is your choice of words a sign of a chip on your shoulder about people who've achieved something academically? Your entire attitude seems to suggest as much.
Clearly you are someone who likes to make excuses (as your previous posts show) and invent narratives so even if I said "My name is.... and here is a paper of mine." you'd likely just say I was lying. As such it's sufficient for me to demonstrate my understanding.
Here is a review paper on flux compactifications. My thesis area was on them. Here is another one which concentrates on more specific examples. And there's this paper which of fundamental importance too. If you wish to discuss them feel free to start a thread over in the physics forum and I'll be happy to discuss them with you.
Clearly you are someone who likes to make excuses (as your previous posts show) and invent narratives so even if I said "My name is.... and here is a paper of mine." you'd likely just say I was lying. As such it's sufficient for me to demonstrate my understanding.
Here is a review paper on flux compactifications. My thesis area was on them. Here is another one which concentrates on more specific examples. And there's this paper which of fundamental importance too. If you wish to discuss them feel free to start a thread over in the physics forum and I'll be happy to discuss them with you.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 18 2011, 09:29 PM)
Please don't take out your frustrations on me
What frustrations? You're the one who has had to resort to lying and making up narratives about me because you couldn't accept being corrected about an area of physics you know nothing about.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jun 18 2011, 10:57 PM)
Some people here, such as Rpenner and bar_room_physicist do know who I am and have confirmed in this thread I am not lying about having a PhD. As I said, I find you sufficiently unhinged I'd rather not give my name. I'm no one important but never the less....
I never said I am 'some important PhD', I said I have a PhD. Is your choice of words a sign of a chip on your shoulder about people who've achieved something academically? Your entire attitude seems to suggest as much.
Clearly you are someone who likes to make excuses (as your previous posts show) and invent narratives so even if I said "My name is.... and here is a paper of mine." you'd likely just say I was lying. As such it's sufficient for me to demonstrate my understanding.
Here is a review paper on flux compactifications. My thesis area was on them. Here is another one which concentrates on more specific examples. And there's this paper which of fundamental importance too. If you wish to discuss them feel free to start a thread over in the physics forum and I'll be happy to discuss them with you.
What frustrations? You're the one who has had to resort to lying and making up narratives about me because you couldn't accept being corrected about an area of physics you know nothing about.
Who gives a crap what your credentials are? Seems you're the only one who needs to 'toss them out' every time you post. The only folks you ever talk with are somebody you can browbeat. I've tried to engage you in discussion about scientific topics and you just blow me off. The whole idea that you don't want folks to know who you are is ridiculous. If you don't want anybody to read your work why mention it to start with?
I never said I am 'some important PhD', I said I have a PhD. Is your choice of words a sign of a chip on your shoulder about people who've achieved something academically? Your entire attitude seems to suggest as much.
Clearly you are someone who likes to make excuses (as your previous posts show) and invent narratives so even if I said "My name is.... and here is a paper of mine." you'd likely just say I was lying. As such it's sufficient for me to demonstrate my understanding.
Here is a review paper on flux compactifications. My thesis area was on them. Here is another one which concentrates on more specific examples. And there's this paper which of fundamental importance too. If you wish to discuss them feel free to start a thread over in the physics forum and I'll be happy to discuss them with you.
What frustrations? You're the one who has had to resort to lying and making up narratives about me because you couldn't accept being corrected about an area of physics you know nothing about.
Who gives a crap what your credentials are? Seems you're the only one who needs to 'toss them out' every time you post. The only folks you ever talk with are somebody you can browbeat. I've tried to engage you in discussion about scientific topics and you just blow me off. The whole idea that you don't want folks to know who you are is ridiculous. If you don't want anybody to read your work why mention it to start with?
Aw, someone feels neglected. 
Time to have another look at this thread.
QUOTE (no1nose+Feb 20 2012, 07:17 PM)
Time to have another look at this thread.
Time to move on.
Time to move on.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Feb 20 2012, 07:55 PM)
Time to move on.
Yes, I agree - that would be stupid.
Are you ashamed of something?
Yes, I agree - that would be stupid.
Are you ashamed of something?
QUOTE (no1nose+Feb 20 2012, 08:36 PM)
Yes, I agree - that would be stupid.
Are you ashamed of something?
Do you think I'm stupid or something?
Are you ashamed of something?
Do you think I'm stupid or something?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Feb 20 2012, 08:43 PM)
Do you think I'm stupid or something?
Great !
Not really - just a bit unaware of the the topic of this thread.
Great !
Not really - just a bit unaware of the the topic of this thread.
QUOTE (no1nose+Feb 20 2012, 08:45 PM)
Great !
Not really - just a bit unaware of the the topic of this thread.
I read some of it and sensed it was time for you to more on; let it go!
Not really - just a bit unaware of the the topic of this thread.
I read some of it and sensed it was time for you to more on; let it go!
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Feb 20 2012, 08:53 PM)
I read some of it and sensed it was time for you to more on; let it go!
One thing about these forums I think is really stupid - they never stay on topic. People use them for soap boxes and personal statements.
The topic here is "The Nature of Stupidity" not "Personal advice"
Oh . . . that is stupid and on topic. I stand correccted
One thing about these forums I think is really stupid - they never stay on topic. People use them for soap boxes and personal statements.
The topic here is "The Nature of Stupidity" not "Personal advice"
Oh . . . that is stupid and on topic. I stand correccted
This is like watching an Abbot and Costello bit. Two idiots arguing. Truly, the nature of stupidity.
QUOTE (AlexG+Feb 20 2012, 09:03 PM)
This is like watching an Abbot and Costello bit. Two idiots arguing. Truly, the nature of stupidity.
Thank you - Thank you
Thank you - Thank you
QUOTE (no1nose+Feb 20 2012, 09:00 PM)
One thing about these forums I think is really stupid - they never stay on topic. People use them for soap boxes and personal statements.
The topic here is "The Nature of Stupidity" not "Personal advice"
Oh . . . that is stupid and on topic. I stand correccted
Well the nature of stupidiy makes one continue arguing the point well beyond it's use by date.
That is why in the interests of Stupidity I suggested you to let it go.
The topic here is "The Nature of Stupidity" not "Personal advice"
Oh . . . that is stupid and on topic. I stand correccted
Well the nature of stupidiy makes one continue arguing the point well beyond it's use by date.
That is why in the interests of Stupidity I suggested you to let it go.
Ask George bush jr what the nature of stupidity is.. I'm sure you'll get an answer not through the answer itself, but through the manner by which he answers it.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.