Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study
-
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.