After a quick look around
-
Yeah, I've kinda gotten to that point with both pizza boy and AGW boy. Well, I still read the some of the more amusing replies to pizza boy's posts, just in case he says something quotable... But otherwise, it's all repetition.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yeah, I've kinda gotten to that point with both pizza boy and AGW boy.
Your wrong to lump these two together. Yeah fat_boy might post na lot of AGW posts but he does have a valid point. Also I have noticed he is one of the few people on here who doesn't suck up to some of the more 'popular' members on here., and he deserves credit for this because the blatant arse-licking by a lot of people on this sight is cringing.
-
I make 3 times as much as you, have earned the respect of my peers and am now repsoible for leadership and wellbeing of others. There have also been a couple of occasions where I have saved a life. You were saying...
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
-
No, YOU consider his type to be eat children, but that is because you are a stupid racist pizza boy who likes jizzing on your mothers tits. The rest of us think he is a top chap who has you beaten in every measureable manner.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yeah, I've kinda gotten to that point with both pizza boy and AGW boy.
Your wrong to lump these two together. Yeah fat_boy might post na lot of AGW posts but he does have a valid point. Also I have noticed he is one of the few people on here who doesn't suck up to some of the more 'popular' members on here., and he deserves credit for this because the blatant arse-licking by a lot of people on this sight is cringing.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yeah, I've kinda gotten to that point with both pizza boy and AGW boy.
Your wrong to lump these two together. Yeah fat_boy might post na lot of AGW posts but he does have a valid point. Also I have noticed he is one of the few people on here who doesn't suck up to some of the more 'popular' members on here., and he deserves credit for this because the blatant arse-licking by a lot of people on this sight is cringing.
That's what I thought at first, but when you actually look at his arguments and rebuttals, you see a different story. He's just a lot more subtle than CSS, and I find it quite disappointing, because unlike pizza boy, he actually seems to have a fully-functioning brain. How about a car analogy? CSS is a 50-year-old jalopy that hasn't worked in a decade, and would barely scrape along the pavement even if you hooked it up to a tow truck. fat_boy is a decent looking four-door sedan, but the engine is hooked up backwards and none of the gauges work. The problem is that he oversimplifies everything. He assumes every scientific theory can be reduced to a linear equation, and ignores all nuances that might affect the results. He'll look at the summary of a 2000-page scientific paper, find an article that points out one mistake, and consider that "proof" that the entire document is not only erroneous, but intentionally fraudulent. Basically, his logic goes like this: 1) I'm right. 2) All of these guys disagree with me, so they're wrong. 3) Obviously they KNOW they're wrong, so they're evil and malicious 4) If they're all lying bastards, then they must be wrong, therefore... 5) GOTO (1) CSS is a lot simpler... He goes something like this: 1) Ron Paul and Alex Jones are infallible prophets. 2) Everyone else is stupid and inferior.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Are you just showing off or is there a point to your post? ;P
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
No, YOU consider his type to be eat children, but that is because you are a stupid racist pizza boy who likes jizzing on your mothers tits. The rest of us think he is a top chap who has you beaten in every measureable manner.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
That's what I thought at first, but when you actually look at his arguments and rebuttals, you see a different story. He's just a lot more subtle than CSS, and I find it quite disappointing, because unlike pizza boy, he actually seems to have a fully-functioning brain. How about a car analogy? CSS is a 50-year-old jalopy that hasn't worked in a decade, and would barely scrape along the pavement even if you hooked it up to a tow truck. fat_boy is a decent looking four-door sedan, but the engine is hooked up backwards and none of the gauges work. The problem is that he oversimplifies everything. He assumes every scientific theory can be reduced to a linear equation, and ignores all nuances that might affect the results. He'll look at the summary of a 2000-page scientific paper, find an article that points out one mistake, and consider that "proof" that the entire document is not only erroneous, but intentionally fraudulent. Basically, his logic goes like this: 1) I'm right. 2) All of these guys disagree with me, so they're wrong. 3) Obviously they KNOW they're wrong, so they're evil and malicious 4) If they're all lying bastards, then they must be wrong, therefore... 5) GOTO (1) CSS is a lot simpler... He goes something like this: 1) Ron Paul and Alex Jones are infallible prophets. 2) Everyone else is stupid and inferior.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
He assumes every scientific theory can be reduced to a linear equation, and ignores all nuances that might affect the results.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
He'll look at the summary of a 2000-page scientific paper, find an article that points out one mistake,
Only ever seen him discuss GW, so to call these 'scientific' papers is stretching it, I think anyone with half a brain can see its bollocks. He got derided for celebrating the death of someone he's never met the other day, I mean come on man up for fuck's sake. My point is he's says what he thinks and calls a spade a spade and in my book thats a good man. As for CSS I wont waste my time, unlike a lot of you.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
He assumes every scientific theory can be reduced to a linear equation, and ignores all nuances that might affect the results.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
He'll look at the summary of a 2000-page scientific paper, find an article that points out one mistake,
Only ever seen him discuss GW, so to call these 'scientific' papers is stretching it, I think anyone with half a brain can see its bollocks. He got derided for celebrating the death of someone he's never met the other day, I mean come on man up for fuck's sake. My point is he's says what he thinks and calls a spade a spade and in my book thats a good man. As for CSS I wont waste my time, unlike a lot of you.
pompeyboy3 wrote:
he's says what he thinks
There's an heroic assumption lurking here. :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
He assumes every scientific theory can be reduced to a linear equation, and ignores all nuances that might affect the results.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
He'll look at the summary of a 2000-page scientific paper, find an article that points out one mistake,
Only ever seen him discuss GW, so to call these 'scientific' papers is stretching it, I think anyone with half a brain can see its bollocks. He got derided for celebrating the death of someone he's never met the other day, I mean come on man up for fuck's sake. My point is he's says what he thinks and calls a spade a spade and in my book thats a good man. As for CSS I wont waste my time, unlike a lot of you.
pompeyboy3 wrote:
Only ever seen him discuss GW, so to call these 'scientific' papers is stretching it, I think anyone with half a brain can see its bollocks.
And anyone with MORE than half a brain can see in more than black-and-white, and realizes that this isn't a two-sided issue. It's not "Man is destroying the planet and we're all going to die" versus "Everything's fine and we can all go home." The real truth is somewhere in between, and the question is exactly where. But since the issue has been so politicized, the general public has split into two camps, and no longer pays much attention to the actual scientific debate.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)