Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
When a chiropractor sells vitamins to a patient for something other than vitamin deficiency, chiropractic is garbage.
When a doctor recomends more expensive medcines because he gets a kick back from a particular medical company, and the tax payer foots the bill, what is that doctor? (And yes, that has happened).
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's a purely empirical claim
Yes, it actually has hard evidence, so how can you doubt it?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Fisticuffs was a biochemist or some such at one point.
Who knows, this is the internet, he hides, as do all of us, behind a persona. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
When a doctor recomends more expensive medcines because he gets a kick back from a particular medical company, and the tax payer foots the bill, what is that doctor?
Irrelevant to the argument?
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Yes, it actually has hard evidence, so how can you doubt it?
:confused:
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Give up eh?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
To be perfectly blunt, Fisticuffs has handed your arse to you.
Only if you choose to ingore facts.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Give up eh?
No, it was just a very difficult sentence to parse. It was long after I posted that I understood it.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Only if you choose to ingore facts.
The fact being that sailors were given a diet that contains vitamin C...?
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
When a doctor recomends more expensive medcines because he gets a kick back from a particular medical company, and the tax payer foots the bill, what is that doctor?
Irrelevant to the argument?
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Yes, it actually has hard evidence, so how can you doubt it?
:confused:
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Give up eh?
No, it was just a very difficult sentence to parse. It was long after I posted that I understood it.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Only if you choose to ingore facts.
The fact being that sailors were given a diet that contains vitamin C...?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, it was just a very difficult sentence to parse. It was long after I posted that I understood it.
:)
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The fact being that sailors were given a diet that contains vitamin C...?
Yes, that is one fact showing that even if vitamines were not so named and were not produced artificially the benefits of said compunds were known.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Irrelevant to the argument?
Only in the narrowest of senses.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
:confused:
You said it had empiricle evidence, yet you doubted it.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
You said it had empiricle evidence, yet you doubted it.
I meant I doubted that Fisticuffs would say it.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, it was just a very difficult sentence to parse. It was long after I posted that I understood it.
:)
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The fact being that sailors were given a diet that contains vitamin C...?
Yes, that is one fact showing that even if vitamines were not so named and were not produced artificially the benefits of said compunds were known.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Yes, that is one fact showing that even if vitamines were not so named and were not produced artificially the benefits of said compunds were known.
Therefore munching vitamin C tablets every day is beneficial?
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Again are you really that dence? For one, this was a hypothetical situation. Therefore you can not use the 'outcome' of it as evidence, for it has not happened. For two, my argument was it will not be released due to profit decline.
Not sure what you are talking about but wrong for several issues. Some possible guesses as to what you are referring. First obviously the battery market is not hypothetical. It is making money and it is doing so by making a battery that lasts longer. Second on average business people make business decisions about what they think the market will do. They have no special abilities that allow them to see the future. Thus if they make a product that lasts longer they do so with the hope that is will increase revenue.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
My point was the competition gets squashed out.
And my point is that you are wrong. And your Durcell example specifically demonstrates that you are wrong.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I gave you many examples of larger companies squashing competition ragardless of their innovations. Have you ever heard of Patent Trolls? Guess not. Simply put you are dead wrong here. I have given you ample evidence supporting it yet you have provided no counter evidence.
And your assertions on that topic are nonsense. In any number of ways especially as it applies to the automobile market. There is NO way that any of the tactics that you are referring to can broadly impact the automobile market. And as a specific example of that, many countries either do not respect the patent process that you refer to with "Patent Trolls" or the enforcement in the country is so lax that the country might as well not be part of the process. And many more countries are more likely to only enforce infringement that is blinding obvious.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Nope. You still have not provided any evidence disproving what I have said or facts I have given
Sorry? Are you claiming that the battery market has NOT been actively creating and marketing batteries that last longer for years?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is about 'infinite' battery life....
Thought I made it clear...I will try again... Please read the followin
jschell wrote:
First obviously the battery market is not hypothetical.
Not about the market. It is about the situation. You again, clearly have not the ability to play thought games.
jschell wrote:
And my point is that you are wrong. And your Durcell example specifically demonstrates that you are wrong.
Actually it means you can't read.
jschell wrote:
And your assertions on that topic are nonsense. In any number of ways especially as it applies to the automobile market. There is NO way that any of the tactics that you are referring to can broadly impact the automobile market. And as a specific example of that, many countries either do not respect the patent process that you refer to with "Patent Trolls" or the enforcement in the country is so lax that the country might as well not be part of the process. And many more countries are more likely to only enforce infringement that is blinding obvious.
Wow, so you can't argue against the Patent issues so you claim now that patents aren't enforced and that patents do not apply to automobiles. Lets go back to your first issue. References[^]. References[^]. References[^]
jschell wrote:
Sorry? Are you claiming that the battery market has NOT been actively creating and marketing batteries that last longer for years?
No, because again you do not know how to read. Not even going to reference the posts. Go back and figure it out yourself. The thought excersize was meant for you, but clearly your brain does not excersize enough so you stumbled and got hung up on the hypothetical details.
jschell wrote:
Thought I made it clear...I will try again...
Please read the following carefully...I reject the assumption itself of a battery with an infinit -
jschell wrote:
First obviously the battery market is not hypothetical.
Not about the market. It is about the situation. You again, clearly have not the ability to play thought games.
jschell wrote:
And my point is that you are wrong. And your Durcell example specifically demonstrates that you are wrong.
Actually it means you can't read.
jschell wrote:
And your assertions on that topic are nonsense. In any number of ways especially as it applies to the automobile market. There is NO way that any of the tactics that you are referring to can broadly impact the automobile market. And as a specific example of that, many countries either do not respect the patent process that you refer to with "Patent Trolls" or the enforcement in the country is so lax that the country might as well not be part of the process. And many more countries are more likely to only enforce infringement that is blinding obvious.
Wow, so you can't argue against the Patent issues so you claim now that patents aren't enforced and that patents do not apply to automobiles. Lets go back to your first issue. References[^]. References[^]. References[^]
jschell wrote:
Sorry? Are you claiming that the battery market has NOT been actively creating and marketing batteries that last longer for years?
No, because again you do not know how to read. Not even going to reference the posts. Go back and figure it out yourself. The thought excersize was meant for you, but clearly your brain does not excersize enough so you stumbled and got hung up on the hypothetical details.
jschell wrote:
Thought I made it clear...I will try again...
Please read the following carefully...I reject the assumption itself of a battery with an infinitCollin Jasnoch wrote:
Wow, so you can't argue against the Patent issues so you claim now that patents aren't enforced and that patents do not apply to automobiles.
I have repeatedly pointed out what it is not applicable to the ENTIRE world wide market. And explained that in detail. I can only suppose that you think that absolutely every jurisdiction in the world is subject to exactly the same intellectual property rights. That is the only reason I can suppose that you think it is relevant.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
No, because again you do not know how to read. .... The thought excersize was meant for you
I already said that I was discussing reality not fantasy. It doesn't matter how you package the idea it doesn't alter the fact that I already rejected it as being relevant. Repeatedly. I suggest you yourself should read better.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Yep you must be right. Using hypothetical cases does not get science anywhere.
Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Your only argument thus far is that my hypothetical situations are fantasy, which by definition they are. Who cares?
There are only two people in this sub-thread. Since I specify do care and reject it I can only suppose that you think that it is relevant to convince yourself of your own argument.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Wow, so you can't argue against the Patent issues so you claim now that patents aren't enforced and that patents do not apply to automobiles.
I have repeatedly pointed out what it is not applicable to the ENTIRE world wide market. And explained that in detail. I can only suppose that you think that absolutely every jurisdiction in the world is subject to exactly the same intellectual property rights. That is the only reason I can suppose that you think it is relevant.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
No, because again you do not know how to read. .... The thought excersize was meant for you
I already said that I was discussing reality not fantasy. It doesn't matter how you package the idea it doesn't alter the fact that I already rejected it as being relevant. Repeatedly. I suggest you yourself should read better.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Yep you must be right. Using hypothetical cases does not get science anywhere.
Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Your only argument thus far is that my hypothetical situations are fantasy, which by definition they are. Who cares?
There are only two people in this sub-thread. Since I specify do care and reject it I can only suppose that you think that it is relevant to convince yourself of your own argument.
jschell wrote:
I have repeatedly pointed out what it is not applicable to the ENTIRE world wide market. And explained that in detail.
I can only suppose that you think that absolutely every jurisdiction in the world is subject to exactly the same intellectual property rights.
That is the only reason I can suppose that you think it is relevant.When you 'point out' you should give a reference. Your 'opinion' is about as usefull as a fully loaded diaper and contains the same content. If you want to 'point' stuff out do so as an adult with references or don't bring it back up.
jschell wrote:
I already said that I was discussing reality not fantasy. It doesn't matter how you package the idea it doesn't alter the fact that I already rejected it as being relevant. Repeatedly. I suggest you yourself should read better.
Then don't debate. Leave. Don't come back. People with no ability to run thought experiments and understand hypothetical situations have no business talking. They are basically drones that do manuall labor. SO GET BACK TO WORK. MUSH! MUSH! FASTER! When you want to start using your brain you can come back.
jschell wrote:
Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
Apparently I needed to make my self very clear. I was being sarcastic. Hypthetical situations and thought experiments are what drive change and promote improved systems. With out them, we are nothing but a bunch of monkeys with tools.
jschell wrote:
There are only two people in this sub-thread. Since I specify do care and reject it I can only suppose that you think that it is relevant to convince yourself of your own argument.
Wrong again. Just killing time between builds and rubbing your face in how wrong you are ;P You have yet to even post on single link or comman fact (which in Debate you do not need a ref to). You have yet to actually counter any of my arguments with 'logic' (you need to learn how to run thought experiments to actually be logical. Not dismiss the pre-amble... that is actual irrational as it is not debatable. Pre-amble is the setting. If you do not believe it can occur is irrelavant). With every post you make you sound more arrogant as you come back with only your opinion, yet I have ask
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
You said it had empiricle evidence, yet you doubted it.
I meant I doubted that Fisticuffs would say it.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I meant I doubted that Fisticuffs would say it.
:confused: Hply crap, I was supposed to know that from your sentence? ;P
============================== Nothing to say.
"[thing] will be denied by Fisticuffs no doubt." "I have no idea what you're talking about, but I doubt it." And then I go on to talk about Fisticuffs as though I was already talking about him. So, you tell me, how were you supposed to know?
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Yes, that is one fact showing that even if vitamines were not so named and were not produced artificially the benefits of said compunds were known.
Therefore munching vitamin C tablets every day is beneficial?
Now you are now arguing like a teenager again, stop it. Did yo know that man and the guinea pig are the only mamals that do not produce vitamin C themselves? A rat aparently produces 600 mg daily so I heard. It is an anti oxidant, and certainly eating fresh fruit is higly recpomended, even by doctors, because it is rich in vitamin C. However, to pile on more evidence of Fistedchuffs idiocy in calling vitamins crap: British Medical Associate discuss vitamin D's critical role in prevencting cancer. [^] NHS position on vitamin supliments. You need them if yoyur diet isnt varied and good[^]
============================== Nothing to say.
-
"[thing] will be denied by Fisticuffs no doubt." "I have no idea what you're talking about, but I doubt it." And then I go on to talk about Fisticuffs as though I was already talking about him. So, you tell me, how were you supposed to know?
:confused: This was the conversation: "(Oh, you know that many mass produced vegetables have less nutrients than organically grown ones? No doubt the utter basic fact of that, which can be proved through chemical analysis, will be denied by Fistedchuff no doubt) I have no idea what you're talking about, but I doubt it. It's a purely empirical claim..." No mention of Fistedchuff, and in fact organic vegetables were a new topic at that post, so I dont see how Fistedchuff could have discussed them previously in the thread.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Now you are now arguing like a teenager again, stop it. Did yo know that man and the guinea pig are the only mamals that do not produce vitamin C themselves? A rat aparently produces 600 mg daily so I heard. It is an anti oxidant, and certainly eating fresh fruit is higly recpomended, even by doctors, because it is rich in vitamin C. However, to pile on more evidence of Fistedchuffs idiocy in calling vitamins crap: British Medical Associate discuss vitamin D's critical role in prevencting cancer. [^] NHS position on vitamin supliments. You need them if yoyur diet isnt varied and good[^]
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Now you are now arguing like a teenager again, stop it.
I can't help that I can't follow your schizophrenic changes of topic.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
However, to pile on more evidence of Fistedchuffs idiocy in calling vitamins crap:
British Medical Associate discuss vitamin D's critical role in prevencting cancer. [^]
NHS position on vitamin supliments. You need them if yoyur diet isnt varied and good[^]:confused: Of course Fisticuffs knows the benefit of vitamins. He was referring to the tendency for chiropractors to sell vitamin supplements to their clients, even though they're costly and completely useless if one has even the slightest semblance of a reasonable diet. You just end up with expensive urine.
-
:confused: This was the conversation: "(Oh, you know that many mass produced vegetables have less nutrients than organically grown ones? No doubt the utter basic fact of that, which can be proved through chemical analysis, will be denied by Fistedchuff no doubt) I have no idea what you're talking about, but I doubt it. It's a purely empirical claim..." No mention of Fistedchuff, and in fact organic vegetables were a new topic at that post, so I dont see how Fistedchuff could have discussed them previously in the thread.
============================== Nothing to say.
"I have no idea what you're talking about, but I doubt it. It's a purely empirical claim, and if I know the mind of Fisticuffs at all it is that he would avoid saying that if he didn't know it for sure." Obviously I was talking about Fisticuffs.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
No mention of Fistedchuff, and in fact organic vegetables were a new topic at that post, so I dont see how Fistedchuff could have discussed them previously in the thread.
I don't even know what on Earth you're talking about.
-
jschell wrote:
I have repeatedly pointed out what it is not applicable to the ENTIRE world wide market. And explained that in detail.
I can only suppose that you think that absolutely every jurisdiction in the world is subject to exactly the same intellectual property rights.
That is the only reason I can suppose that you think it is relevant.When you 'point out' you should give a reference. Your 'opinion' is about as usefull as a fully loaded diaper and contains the same content. If you want to 'point' stuff out do so as an adult with references or don't bring it back up.
jschell wrote:
I already said that I was discussing reality not fantasy. It doesn't matter how you package the idea it doesn't alter the fact that I already rejected it as being relevant. Repeatedly. I suggest you yourself should read better.
Then don't debate. Leave. Don't come back. People with no ability to run thought experiments and understand hypothetical situations have no business talking. They are basically drones that do manuall labor. SO GET BACK TO WORK. MUSH! MUSH! FASTER! When you want to start using your brain you can come back.
jschell wrote:
Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
Apparently I needed to make my self very clear. I was being sarcastic. Hypthetical situations and thought experiments are what drive change and promote improved systems. With out them, we are nothing but a bunch of monkeys with tools.
jschell wrote:
There are only two people in this sub-thread. Since I specify do care and reject it I can only suppose that you think that it is relevant to convince yourself of your own argument.
Wrong again. Just killing time between builds and rubbing your face in how wrong you are ;P You have yet to even post on single link or comman fact (which in Debate you do not need a ref to). You have yet to actually counter any of my arguments with 'logic' (you need to learn how to run thought experiments to actually be logical. Not dismiss the pre-amble... that is actual irrational as it is not debatable. Pre-amble is the setting. If you do not believe it can occur is irrelavant). With every post you make you sound more arrogant as you come back with only your opinion, yet I have ask
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
When you 'point out' you should give a reference. Your 'opinion' is about as usefull as a fully loaded diaper and contains the same content. If you want to 'point' stuff out do so as an adult with references or don't bring it back up.
I see. So you do think the entire world has the same intellectual property rights. That certainly explains quite a bit.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
...yet I have asked you again and again do not post claims with out links/references.
You should re-evaluate how you came to conclusion that it should be my responsibility to do your research for you.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
When you 'point out' you should give a reference. Your 'opinion' is about as usefull as a fully loaded diaper and contains the same content. If you want to 'point' stuff out do so as an adult with references or don't bring it back up.
I see. So you do think the entire world has the same intellectual property rights. That certainly explains quite a bit.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
...yet I have asked you again and again do not post claims with out links/references.
You should re-evaluate how you came to conclusion that it should be my responsibility to do your research for you.
jschell wrote:
I see. So you do think the entire world has the same intellectual property rights. That certainly explains quite a bit.
Nope. Again, learn to read. I never said anything of the sort.
jschell wrote:
You should re-evaluate how you came to conclusion that it should be my responsibility to do your research for you.
For future reference you sound like an idiot on forums if you make a claim and provide no link. You look like a tool if you come back and try to fight it, and still provide no link. Why should anyone research your loaded diaper opinion? If you want to claim it as fact, go ahead. But stop spouting about it once someone asks for links/refs unless you provide them. It just makes you look like a child that recently got their pron privallages returned and you ventured into the wrong forum.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
jschell wrote:
I see. So you do think the entire world has the same intellectual property rights. That certainly explains quite a bit.
Nope. Again, learn to read. I never said anything of the sort.
jschell wrote:
You should re-evaluate how you came to conclusion that it should be my responsibility to do your research for you.
For future reference you sound like an idiot on forums if you make a claim and provide no link. You look like a tool if you come back and try to fight it, and still provide no link. Why should anyone research your loaded diaper opinion? If you want to claim it as fact, go ahead. But stop spouting about it once someone asks for links/refs unless you provide them. It just makes you look like a child that recently got their pron privallages returned and you ventured into the wrong forum.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Nope. Again, learn to read. I never said anything of the sort.
What you quoted related specifically to intellectual property rights. And then you stated that I needed to post references. So either your response did not apply to what you quoted or you were asking for a reference that explained that different intellectual property rights existed. It there was a third option then the way that you posted failed to communicate that.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
For future reference you sound like an idiot on forums if you make a claim and provide no link.
For future reference opinions about me on forums mean absolutely nothing. I post to amuse myself ranging from happy thoughts to outright laughter. Nothing else.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Why should anyone research your loaded diaper opinion?
Why you do something is up to you. Why I do something is up to me. If I think it is amusing (see above) then I might research something. My needs, not yours, drive what I do.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It just makes you look like a child that recently got their pron privallages returned and you ventured into the wrong forum.
Just to be clear, I never doubted that you had many opinions. Like that one. Many of your opinions had nothing to do with the actual topic. Just like that one.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Now you are now arguing like a teenager again, stop it.
I can't help that I can't follow your schizophrenic changes of topic.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
However, to pile on more evidence of Fistedchuffs idiocy in calling vitamins crap:
British Medical Associate discuss vitamin D's critical role in prevencting cancer. [^]
NHS position on vitamin supliments. You need them if yoyur diet isnt varied and good[^]:confused: Of course Fisticuffs knows the benefit of vitamins. He was referring to the tendency for chiropractors to sell vitamin supplements to their clients, even though they're costly and completely useless if one has even the slightest semblance of a reasonable diet. You just end up with expensive urine.
