Area54

Is it entirely the orbital velocity that is changed? I wondered if a portion of the rotational energy of the planet could be "tapped"?

Interesting observations, but some of them leave me a little confused. I hope you will help me remove that confusion. Here are some questions. Is the narrative you refer to the narrative of this particular event, the narrative of mass shootings in general, the narrative of the present divided condition of the USA, or some other narrative? I'm not American and though I am reasonably well versed in American history and politics for an outsider I am not familiar with your "baseball practice" reference. Would you explain this please? The opening phrases of the quote do not parse. You seem to be saying that paddock is the exception to being trapped by the aforementioned narrative. Is that the case? What aspects of the brother's performance led you to conclude he was a Lefty? It's not obvious to me that the Left has become unhinged. (This may be because that typical leftist positions in the US would place right of centre in the UK and so I have a different perspective.) Would you detail the principle items of evidence that led you to this conclusion? Which subject have you been studying since 1991? The Mainstream Media narrative? The derangement of the Leftists? The Leftists in general? Something else? I hope you can assist me by answering each of these points. I'll conclude with an observation. I've been studying American poliltics on and off for fifty years. I don't think that's relevant to the discussion and equally don't think your period of study of about half that is relevant either.

Good catchphrase.

I haven't found any particular problem with speed, but I have had several 502 Bad Gateway messages. None in the last 12 hours.

Damn you sir. You've stolen my thunder. I'll just have to accuse you of infantile obviousness.

I have only limited influence on your perceptions. Your ideas presented here and on the other thread seem quite interesting to me. That's why I have engaged in the discussion. However, as I have pointed out, a characteristic of your style obfuscates those ideas. That was problematic in the other thread, as noted by several members other than myself. Then, I notice the same issue occuring here. I could remain silent on the matter, but I would actually like to follow your argument without requiring mutltiple posts to extract your meaning, So, it is personal in the sense that I, personally, would like to understand your arguments without unnecessary effort. You complained that the other thread was being sidetracked, so you were also suffering from the consequences of your obfuscation. You are free to continue being obtuse if you wish, but you should then accept the consequences. It's sounds as if I was as unclear in that post as I believe you often are. I'll revisit it in the thread and provide any necessary clarification. In the meantime we can avoid these tiresome deviations if you make clear which aspect of any term with multiple aspects you are referencing any time you use that term. Normal, on-topic, service will now be resumed.

No. You are being evasive. An acceptable response would have been to provide references, links and well founded reasons to justify your opinions. Changing the subject may well fool fools, but I doubt it will slip past many here.

I don't have a problem. You have a problem. You can ignore this problem, in which case your views will not receive the understanding they deserve and that, presumably, you are aiming for. Or you can consider the possibility that there is some substance to what I am saying. A characteristic of style that causes a problem in one thread and causes a problem in a second thread is surely one that you would wish to address. However, it is your choice.

Thank you for those insights. My primary exposure to Nietzsche prior to this was reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra as an undergraduate. (And that was so long ago, I'm not sure Nietzsche had even written it yet!)

FFS. No, I am agreeing with Nietzsche, you know the author of the topic of the thread. Are asserting that people are not animals? Are you asserting that most people put their animal instincts behind them? Really? Having screwed up your first attempt at understanding my post, you screw it up a second time. Read the words: "To which I would reply, were Nietsczhe here to hear me " - Do you understand? That wasn't directed at scherado. It was directed at Nietzsche. I even reminded you of that fact in my previous post by describing it as "hypothetical advice to Nietzsche". Do you understand now. Moreover, I am not telling the OP to get over being an animal. I'm am, in my hypothetical advice to Nietzsche, telling him to get over the fact that most people make no intellectual effort in acquiring a set of ethics. In short, you have completely misunderstood my statements. That's quite a talent! You are entitled to your opinion. Nietzsche, and myself are quire indifferent to you taking exception to our different views. What makes you think iNow agrees with me? There is nothing in his post that indicates his view on the matter. He simply pointed out that you had misunderstood my post. You know, in the same way you have now misunderstood his post. Is there a pattern here? I see nothing in Nietzsche's views expressed above and certainly there is nothing in my mind that suggests this is the case. I'll try to spell it out for you again. I'll express it as my view, since I don't know how well, if at all, I have understood Nietzsche's position. The average human acquires a set of morals that are a product of Nature and Nurture. Instinct, coupled with the mores of the individual's society, determine for the most part the average human's moral suite. But an arguably better way of deriving ones morals is to contemplate and enquire. Such enquiry should make use of the tools and knowledge of philosophy, religion and science. The morals are derived by the individual, but based upon the thoughts and works of many individuals, cultures and philosophies. Now, if you ha You are fond of telling people how they think and correcting them when they get it wrong. That becomes tiresome, but I now know - from experience - after two weeks having you on Ignore I shall have quite forgotten how quirky you are. Since this is a strawman, based on yet another misundertanding on your part, it requires no response. Goodbye.

I did not see your post. I have had you on Ignore for weeks. iNow has pointed out the error of your interpretation. I believe my post should have been perfectly clear, but let's dissect it. People are animals. I am a person. Have I said anything in this or any other post or thread to suggest otherwise? Ergo, I am an animal. Just like everyone else. Nietzsche seems to agree. Most of them never get over it. Nietzsche seems to agree. So - as it happens - do I. But I do not explicitly claim to be one of the ones who has, though I would argue that I am. I would expect that most regular members of the forum are too. Perhaps you should to. Hypothetical advice to Nietzsche that this is a given of the human condition and not one worth dwelling on. tar, even if I had said what you mistakenly believed I had said I am amazed you think it warranted a downvote. I can't help feeling this is a hangover from our disagreements on Cosmos Mike's thread. If so, that's pretty juvenile. I don't believe I have ever given you a downvote . I don't give them for disagreement, I don't give them for stupidity, or arrogance, or third rate posts, but for serious incidents of prejudice or hate speech. Fortunately those are rare here. I probably won't see your reply if you make one, since I'll be leaving you on Ignore. One of us is misinterpreting Nietzsche. He is not, IMO, saying that we should derive our ethics in isolation, but that we should derive them, not accept what is handed to us by instinct and circumstance. We should reflect and we should question. I've just carefully re-read the OP and it seems unambiguous. However, you managed to misinterpet a single-clause sentence of mine, so I can understand Nietzsche might give you problems.

And, in some instances, half of the Faculty.

Perhaps the member who gave me a downvote for my post would be courteous enough to specify what they found so objectionable about it. Was my precis of Nietzsche's views defective? If so, in what way? Do they dispute my contention that humans are governed to a great extent by instinct and many, perhaps most, fail to make serious use of their critical faculties? Were they offended by my implication that the basic thesis is so obvious that it hardly merits lamenting on the part of Nietzsche? Or was it nothing more than distaste for my careless misspelling of Nietzsche?

I agree with your caution, but surely one would cross-reference any declared fact, whether in Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, a textbook, or a research paper. I have found Wikipedia to be as reliable as the others in those fields I have knowledge of and therefore, tentatively, extend that expectation to other fields. I find the references associated with each article typically provide the depth if and when required.

It is difficult not to share your viewpoint. You may be mistaken, but there seems - another opinion - a core of truth in it.

Regarding your OP, for your second post seems unconnected with it, Nietsczhe appears to be saying "I deplore the fact that most people never bother to derive their ethics." To which I would reply, were Nietsczhe here to hear me "People are animals. Most of them never get over it. Perhaps you should."

One protest does not a revolution make. Do you think it does? Clarification please. Are you conflating brownshirts with Black Lives Matter, or are your referencing a subset of Black Lives Matter. The distinction appears to be an important one. Can you explain what you mean by this statement? It can be interpreted in many ways and so it would be easy to go off on a pointless tangent if one chose the wrong one. Your responses to these questions should serve well to meet HI's request.

Even if they have a pretty good idea at this stage what the motivation was, it would be prudent to complete their investigation before issuing their conclusions, rather than having the embarrassment of one or more retractions. Moreover, while it seems he acted alone, ongoing investigations into possible accomplices could be prejudiced by an early release of such information. In short, the authorities, in this regard, appear to be handlong things in a sober and reasonable manner.

I applaud your consistency of approach. It is honest and direct. The essence of science involves a readiness to abandon old ideas in the face of new evidence and a readiness to seek out that evidence. Those who are against science, such as yourself, insist upon immovable, immutable dogma. It is therefore a veritable delight to see you stick to your guns and refuse to entertain wikipedia under any circumstances. Well done. You may feel justifiably proud.

War and Peace is the first book I have not been able, ever, to complete. I've been attempting to read it for about fifty years, starting again every decade or so and never getting past page 150. Good luck. On the other hand, with reference to the highlighted text where you assert no need for improvement, perhaps you will learn about the value of paragraphs.

On topic: I find the notion of no go zones ridiculous. I find the readiness of those of a certain political perspective to believe in them disturbing. Regarding the injection of bawdy humour to an intense discussion: Why did Shakespeare introduce a drunken porter into the Scottish play? Regarding fishing expeditions: good luck.

WE all know that terrorist plots are hatched from Kinder Eggs. The only no-go zone I am intimately familiar with is any toilet facility where I have performed a bowel movement in the recent past. Biochemical warfare eat your heart out!

No. If I had meant that I would almost certainly have said that. If you are asking whether physics is singular or plural, I refer you to this, which corroborates Strange's view. If you were asking if I was referring to Strange's first post, or the OP, it was the OP.

This is a duplicate of another of your posts. My thesis is that repeating nonsense does not change its character, except to make it more boring.

You are correct about this being a communication problem, but you have misidentified the source. You recall the problems that arose because you insisted upon using the generic "consciousness" to cover a variety of sins, often failing to use context to distinguish between them. Now you have applied the same approach to the variety of meanings for "known". In this regard your posts are often a poor promotion of the power of philosophy. That's something you would benefit from addressing, rather than composing and posting a faulty refutation of my observations.