I figured it out.
-
Since you are brining it up, I'll make one comment. I thought the same thing because early espier had a similar style to this guy, but Red would never ever say he wasn't Catholic. It doesn't keep them from being twins separated at birth though.
The difference between pH 13 and pH 8 is five, which meant that pH 13 was ten to the fifth power - a hundred thousand times - more alkaline than pH 8. That kind of thing goes on all the time. But no matter how many diplomas are tacked to your wall, give people a figure like that and they'll pass you off as a flake. You can't get most people to believe how wildly the eco-laws get broken. But if I say "More than twice the legal limit," they get comfortably outraged. - Neal Stephenson
-
Hard to say.......it is a pretty similar style of calling everybody who disagreed an idiot. Of course, it seems that has become an unfortunate trend.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
it is a pretty similar style of calling everybody who disagreed an idiot. Of course, it seems that has become an unfortunate trend.
You people are simply amazing! You (plural) project *your* faults onto me ... often in the very same posts in which you are displaying those faults. I criticize your (plural) refusal to *think* It is you people who equate disagreement with your beliefs (most of which are false, anyway) with idiocy.
-
I got it: The greatest troll ever has returned. Capable of twisting any argument, circling any logic, evading any question and yet people to hold onto his every word... Red Stateler = Ilion. Suddenly the universe makes sense.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
No no no no. Red Stateler is 50% leg pulling and 50% idiocy. Ilidiot is pure and unadulterated idiocy. I think Red is the product of his environment. Ilidiot stupidity is in his genetic makeup.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Chris Austin wrote:
it is a pretty similar style of calling everybody who disagreed an idiot. Of course, it seems that has become an unfortunate trend.
You people are simply amazing! You (plural) project *your* faults onto me ... often in the very same posts in which you are displaying those faults. I criticize your (plural) refusal to *think* It is you people who equate disagreement with your beliefs (most of which are false, anyway) with idiocy.
+9 points of gibberish. Do you really believe that it's everybody else on the planet that's wrong? That you're God's gift to logic and reason? Delusions of grandeur...
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
I got it: The greatest troll ever has returned. Capable of twisting any argument, circling any logic, evading any question and yet people to hold onto his every word... Red Stateler = Ilion. Suddenly the universe makes sense.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
I guess Red buggered off before I ventured into the SoapBox void. I never saw any of his posts. But if they are not the same and are similar, then it disturbs me that something Iliot-like can happen twice. :~
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
I got it: The greatest troll ever has returned. Capable of twisting any argument, circling any logic, evading any question and yet people to hold onto his every word... Red Stateler = Ilion. Suddenly the universe makes sense.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
I always found Red to be very astute in his observations. Ilion can occassionally make some valid points, more frequently than the leftist horde here does, but he does represent a facton of conservatism that does the movement a great deal of harm. His reasoning, in fact, is very similar to that generally associated with the left, his conclusions are merely different.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
I always found Red to be very astute in his observations. Ilion can occassionally make some valid points, more frequently than the leftist horde here does, but he does represent a facton of conservatism that does the movement a great deal of harm. His reasoning, in fact, is very similar to that generally associated with the left, his conclusions are merely different.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
You're so amusing. The fact is that my reasoning is always sound (it's a life-long habit) and I make it a point to be conservative (by which I don't mean in a political sense) in my claims. You just don't like some of the conclusions I express. The problem (from your point of view) is that all your attemps to refute them rely upon question-begging. Same as your leftist buddies here ... who are, of course, going to fall all over themselves in admiration for you now and in the future. :rolleyes:
modified on Monday, February 04, 2008 5:28:05 PM
-
You're so amusing. The fact is that my reasoning is always sound (it's a life-long habit) and I make it a point to be conservative (by which I don't mean in a political sense) in my claims. You just don't like some of the conclusions I express. The problem (from your point of view) is that all your attemps to refute them rely upon question-begging. Same as your leftist buddies here ... who are, of course, going to fall all over themselves in admiration for you now and in the future. :rolleyes:
modified on Monday, February 04, 2008 5:28:05 PM
-
I always found Red to be very astute in his observations. Ilion can occassionally make some valid points, more frequently than the leftist horde here does, but he does represent a facton of conservatism that does the movement a great deal of harm. His reasoning, in fact, is very similar to that generally associated with the left, his conclusions are merely different.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
His reasoning, in fact, is very similar to that generally associated with the left, his conclusions are merely different.
Tell you what, Stan, in the future (because *I* will not be any different than I am today), why don't you point this out when it happens (not that it ever will). Using only reason and logic, of course. Because, after all, if my conclusions are the result of faulty reasoning ... and your opposing conclusions are the result of sound reasoning ... you will be able to express this without begging the question.
Stan Shannon wrote:
but he does represent a facton of conservatism that does the movement a great deal of harm.
I don't give a fig for "the movement." But, in fact, what you *really* mean is than I am one of those terrible, terrible people whose ideas stand in the way of the ideas of fine, upstanding persons such as yourself defining what it means to be "conservative." Apparently, people like me are supposed to shut up ... but be sure to turn out on election day.
-
You're so amusing. The fact is that my reasoning is always sound (it's a life-long habit) and I make it a point to be conservative (by which I don't mean in a political sense) in my claims. You just don't like some of the conclusions I express. The problem (from your point of view) is that all your attemps to refute them rely upon question-begging. Same as your leftist buddies here ... who are, of course, going to fall all over themselves in admiration for you now and in the future. :rolleyes:
modified on Monday, February 04, 2008 5:28:05 PM
Ilíon wrote:
who are, of course, going to fall all over themselves in admiration for you now and in the future.
Actually, I think they view me as a greater threat than they do you to their core principles precisely because I do agree with them on the fundamental accomplishments of the age of reason. The only real difference between them and I is that I believe the age of reason ended in about 1791 or so (with the end of the American Revolutionary period), and they believe it ended over a century later (with the rise of liberation theory and the collapse of international western imperical hegemony,etc). I think that the intellectual battles of the 19th century represent a reversal of reason and are at least partially repsonsible for the rise of the modern "religious right" which you, I assume by reading between the lines, represent. You and I share the same enemy but for starkly different reasons. If there was not such a dangerous threat from secular humanism and Islam, I would consider you the primary threat to my civilization.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
I always found Red to be very astute in his observations. Ilion can occassionally make some valid points, more frequently than the leftist horde here does, but he does represent a facton of conservatism that does the movement a great deal of harm. His reasoning, in fact, is very similar to that generally associated with the left, his conclusions are merely different.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
I always found Red to be very astute in his observations.
I'll admit the number of times I actually enjoyed with/agreed with his posts is not zero. Quite a few, really. To say "always" though seems to suggest some kind of confirmation bias...
Stan Shannon wrote:
Ilion can occassionally make some valid points
:wtf:
Stan Shannon wrote:
more frequently than the leftist horde here does
When someone doesn't make any points, I don't see how this is possible...
Stan Shannon wrote:
His reasoning, in fact
Wouldn't that suggest some attempt to have a conversation? :doh: :)
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
No no no no. Red Stateler is 50% leg pulling and 50% idiocy. Ilidiot is pure and unadulterated idiocy. I think Red is the product of his environment. Ilidiot stupidity is in his genetic makeup.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Ilidiot stupidity is in his genetic makeup.
From the horse's mouth [^]
Ilíon wrote:
I am the son of a share-cropper who had a total of 19 months of formal education in back-woods Missouri
I'll make no further remarks about his astounding capabilities.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
His reasoning, in fact, is very similar to that generally associated with the left, his conclusions are merely different.
Tell you what, Stan, in the future (because *I* will not be any different than I am today), why don't you point this out when it happens (not that it ever will). Using only reason and logic, of course. Because, after all, if my conclusions are the result of faulty reasoning ... and your opposing conclusions are the result of sound reasoning ... you will be able to express this without begging the question.
Stan Shannon wrote:
but he does represent a facton of conservatism that does the movement a great deal of harm.
I don't give a fig for "the movement." But, in fact, what you *really* mean is than I am one of those terrible, terrible people whose ideas stand in the way of the ideas of fine, upstanding persons such as yourself defining what it means to be "conservative." Apparently, people like me are supposed to shut up ... but be sure to turn out on election day.
Ilíon wrote:
Tell you what, Stan, in the future (because *I* will not be any different than I am today), why don't you point this out when it happens (not that it ever will).
OK. Although, I think I have on numerous occassions.
Ilíon wrote:
I don't give a fig for "the movement."
I do.
Ilíon wrote:
Apparently, people like me are supposed to shut up ... but be sure to turn out on election day.
No, I consider you to be a guite useful ally. You represent a natural reaction to the rise of secular humanism, which is currently the greatest threat to Jeffersonian democracy.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Chris Austin wrote:
it is a pretty similar style of calling everybody who disagreed an idiot. Of course, it seems that has become an unfortunate trend.
You people are simply amazing! You (plural) project *your* faults onto me ... often in the very same posts in which you are displaying those faults. I criticize your (plural) refusal to *think* It is you people who equate disagreement with your beliefs (most of which are false, anyway) with idiocy.
Ilíon wrote:
I criticize your (plural) refusal to *think*
If you had any capability to *think*, you would realize what a fool you have made yourself to be and slink off with your tail between your legs.
The world is flat or it isn't, visibility is what it is or it isn't. What the hell does perception have to do with it?!? Do I think they knew that back then? They had eyes didn't they? Moron. - BoneSoft on whether or not the Bible says the earth is flat
-
Ilíon wrote:
Tell you what, Stan, in the future (because *I* will not be any different than I am today), why don't you point this out when it happens (not that it ever will).
OK. Although, I think I have on numerous occassions.
Ilíon wrote:
I don't give a fig for "the movement."
I do.
Ilíon wrote:
Apparently, people like me are supposed to shut up ... but be sure to turn out on election day.
No, I consider you to be a guite useful ally. You represent a natural reaction to the rise of secular humanism, which is currently the greatest threat to Jeffersonian democracy.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
OK. Although, I think I have on numerous occassions.
Oh, you do not. You engage is question begging ... I just let it drop with you sooner than I do with the Moron Brigade.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, I consider you to be a guite useful ally.
I refuse to be useful. But, more importantly, if one does not respect one's "allies," then, of course, one considers them in terms of utility. While I'm one the subject, do you really think I didn't already understand where you stand on this?
Stan Shannon wrote:
which is currently the greatest threat to Jeffersonian democracy.
"Jeffersonian democracy" is another of those myths with *no* basis in reality. Thank God that America-as-it-is was shaped by Hamilton, rather than by Jefferson. Have you actually read any biographies of Jefferson? Do you have any idea what his politics was actually like?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
OK. Although, I think I have on numerous occassions.
Oh, you do not. You engage is question begging ... I just let it drop with you sooner than I do with the Moron Brigade.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, I consider you to be a guite useful ally.
I refuse to be useful. But, more importantly, if one does not respect one's "allies," then, of course, one considers them in terms of utility. While I'm one the subject, do you really think I didn't already understand where you stand on this?
Stan Shannon wrote:
which is currently the greatest threat to Jeffersonian democracy.
"Jeffersonian democracy" is another of those myths with *no* basis in reality. Thank God that America-as-it-is was shaped by Hamilton, rather than by Jefferson. Have you actually read any biographies of Jefferson? Do you have any idea what his politics was actually like?
"Jeffersonian Democracy" does not refer specifically to Thomas Jefferson, it refers to the entire intellectual momentum than culminated in the establishement of our constitutional republic. Jefferson's name is merely attached to it because he was a man of such enormous intellectual energy, authored the Declaration of Independence and all. I would actually prefer to refer to it as "Madisonian" democracy, but that would just be so pendantic. I'm not a big fan of Hamilton, and I am somewhat surprised that you are. He was a rabid federalist and would probably have been quite comfortable with the modern democrats in many ways. Jefferson and Madison ultimately became the proponents of the anti-federalists in opposition to Hamilton (thank God for Burr), which became the controlling principle of American society until about the time of FDR. It is what allowed the people to control their local schools and establish laws governing their local society without being subverted by the federal courts. It was the very basis of 'States Rights', something Hamilton would have vehemently opposed.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
modified on Monday, February 04, 2008 6:48:47 PM
-
I always found Red to be very astute in his observations. Ilion can occassionally make some valid points, more frequently than the leftist horde here does, but he does represent a facton of conservatism that does the movement a great deal of harm. His reasoning, in fact, is very similar to that generally associated with the left, his conclusions are merely different.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
the leftist horde
PETERCHENtries to make grunting Ghengis Khan noises, and look intimidating and mongolian, but can't control the childish giggleWe are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Stan Shannon wrote:
the leftist horde
PETERCHENtries to make grunting Ghengis Khan noises, and look intimidating and mongolian, but can't control the childish giggleWe are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
tries to make grunting Ghengis Khan noises, and look intimidating and mongolian, but can't control the childish giggle
For a real laugh, think of me as knight in shining amour riding out to meet them. :~
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
"Jeffersonian Democracy" does not refer specifically to Thomas Jefferson, it refers to the entire intellectual momentum than culminated in the establishement of our constitutional republic. Jefferson's name is merely attached to it because he was a man of such enormous intellectual energy, authored the Declaration of Independence and all. I would actually prefer to refer to it as "Madisonian" democracy, but that would just be so pendantic. I'm not a big fan of Hamilton, and I am somewhat surprised that you are. He was a rabid federalist and would probably have been quite comfortable with the modern democrats in many ways. Jefferson and Madison ultimately became the proponents of the anti-federalists in opposition to Hamilton (thank God for Burr), which became the controlling principle of American society until about the time of FDR. It is what allowed the people to control their local schools and establish laws governing their local society without being subverted by the federal courts. It was the very basis of 'States Rights', something Hamilton would have vehemently opposed.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
modified on Monday, February 04, 2008 6:48:47 PM
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not a big fan of Hamilton, and I am somewhat surprised that you are. He was a rabid federalist and would probably have been quite comfortable with the modern democrats in many ways.
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Again, have you actually *read* any biographies of either man? May I be so bold as to suggest, as a starter, "His Excellency," which is about Washington, but from which one may learn quite a bit about both Jefferson and Hamilton.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not a big fan of Hamilton, and I am somewhat surprised that you are. He was a rabid federalist and would probably have been quite comfortable with the modern democrats in many ways.
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Again, have you actually *read* any biographies of either man? May I be so bold as to suggest, as a starter, "His Excellency," which is about Washington, but from which one may learn quite a bit about both Jefferson and Hamilton.
Ilíon wrote:
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?
I'm actually pretty sure I do. Are you disagreeing that Hamilton was a federalist, and opposed Jefferson and Madison's increasing association with the anti-federalists which was the foundation of our legal traditions until well into the 20th century? Granted it has been decades since I've read any biography of any of them (I'm not a big fan of biographies, none are unbiased), but I'm pretty sure that basic history has not been redefined. I'm aware that Hamilton was a very couragious junior officer in Washington's command, but that says nothing about the man's politics. He was a leading proponent of power, especially economic power, being concentrated in the hands of a powerful central government. His economic reforms certainly helped the young nation gain its footing, his financial views were very advanced, but I am curious what you could possibly otherwise find attractive about the man politically. Madison was the original flip-flopper, originally siding with Hamilton he changed to Jeffeson's views based upon the merits of Jefferson's reasoning. Hamilton would have completely eliminated the states altogether and replaced t hem with one single federal government.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization