Phi for All

More extreme, childish arguments. Did you stamp your foot when you wrote that?

! Moderator Note Since ACUV, aka sockpuppet for Hal., is no longer with us, please feel free to pursue the original arguments in this thread.

I think it's highly manipulative to imply something bad without stating it unequivocally. It's a ploy used by the unscrupulous, knowing that people will fill in the details when none are supplied. I really can't say whether rigney is doing this consciously or is just mimicking the tactics of his party and the right-wing pundits, but it leaves me feeling dirty whenever I see it happening. It's highly insidious since the culprits can hide behind the insinuations, claiming they never really made any claims, and knowing that gullible people will imagine the worst.

Fixed that for you, no charge.

The lyrics of the song are pretty spiritual, though. She doesn't specifically mention Christianity, but she kisses that rosary she's holding at one point, and she's singing, "Even if the future is taken captive, even if it vanishes in the distance, this prayer will never cease. I want to send my sincere feelings to you. I whisper to you, the one who gave me my 'beginning,' keep the promise that we made just between ourselves. The magic of eternity that never changes." That's the deal with that.

What are you accusing the Obama administration of with regards to the Benghazi Embassy incident, in clear, unequivocal terms? What are you basing this on? All politicians are more or less expected to talk about what they're doing for us, so how can they do that without saying, "I did this" or "I'm very concerned" or "I was just informed"? This is just more evidence, imo, that you have built up such hatred for this man that you're completely unhinged when it comes to anything he does. He could suddenly balance the budget and help pioneer productive solar power and bring peace to the Middle East, but you'd be screaming about how much he's preening and strutting about it.

Absolutely not, though there is a lot of sin in trigonometry.

Those damn peer reviewers! They seem to value the integrity of science and their own credibility above the ideas of the next Galileo.

It'd be easy for all of us to handle, especially if Obama gets a Congress that's not blocking every smart move. But Bush 2.0?! Yeah, breaks the heart.

You're the epitome of a modern ultra-right-wing Republican.

He does look quite a bit like Frodo. And I've never seen the two of them in the same room, now that you mention it.

This really isn't a good enough answer, rigney. It's just a song and dance, worthy of the worst kind of politician, the guys you claim to hate. You've been insinuating, sidestepping, and completely failing to make your point. What is it you're accusing the Obama administration of? At least with Bush and 9/11, people were claiming he ignored evidence of an impending attack so he could gain sympathy from a wounded populace so he could go ahead with the attack on Iraq that Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld already had mapped out. Are you claiming that Obama ignored evidence for some kind of gain like this? Or are you just accusing the administration of being stretched too thin and ignoring a hotspot that, in hindsight, they should have beefed up with more security? If they had authorized that SST team to stay a bit longer and the ambassador still died from smoke inhalation, would you then cry that they should have done even more? Or are you claiming that they tried to cover up a mistake by the administration, whether it was bad intelligence or bad judgement or bad timing with the election near? Personally, I think it was a combination of not knowing, poor ventilation and playing things a bit too close to the vest. It's a tragedy, but in all this I still haven't heard an answer as to why the ambassador's safe room could become filled with smoke. So please, PLEASE, have the stones to come out and make your accusations known, and stop this soft-shoe shuffle you're wasting our time with. And don't you dare say it'll all be decided come November.

I can understand why people can get an idea that seems plausible to them and then claim persecution when the idea isn't readily accepted, even harshly criticized. They often bring up the persecution of Galileo and speak of a kindred bond. But Galileo was back in the day before modern communication. Even 75 years ago, scientists didn't have the kind of instantaneous access to each other's work the way they do now. This kind of fast-track collaboration has exponentially increased the ability to assess hypotheses on a global basis. There has never been a time when so many scientists have been capable of so much combined effort. And yet there remain those few who think they can do better from isolation, and refuse to join the mainstream to at least learn where others have been before deciding to take the raft over the falls....

I'll get it back to you soon.

You saw EXACTLY what we wanted you to see....

But she was crazy, and not just crazy for you. I had her tested.

Hey hey, there's no need for that! It's a contraction of "you are", so there's an apostrophe you missed. Evidence?

I was just reading a thread where Sayo is complaining about Alex being so spammy and off-topic. Dave threatens to get out his cattle prod and all agree the little twirp needs a couple points towards a suspension. Probably made him the man he is today. OMG that's hilarious! +1

So true. I remember when Sayo gave me my first Nizkor link... * sniff * The Goats! How could I forget the GOATS! Was that Farsight? We've had a few title case junkies. It amuses me to think they enunciate well. Hate cold leg on fly. How smell! To us, its white is black. How was that? Don't you love the Lounge?

So... you're a mole troll?! How appropriate for a chemist!

It was scary getting into arguments with Sayonara3. Even when you felt you were right, you were never sure you'd get out with all your toes and fingers. Nick, remember how he used to dice up some of those early crackpot trolls like scienceisbad and that guy that claimed there were pyramids on Mars? And KHinfcube, the guy who always posted... in... ellipses?

OK, I get it now. ACUV takes exception to something CaptainPanic says in one thread, then he mentions it bizarrely in another thread and when I ask him to stop hijacking and trolling, he goes ballistic and starts this thread. I understand now. Carry on. Edit to add: You know who was really great at handling stuff like this? Sayonara3. I used to love his replies to complaints like this. I miss him. He must be head of MI-6 by now.

It IS strange how someone a) fails to understand a scientific concept, b) then gets a partially formed, non-supported but seemingly intuitive idea in their head, c) then becomes ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED, beyond a shadow of a doubt, they've discovered a flaw that no one else even considered (because those people DIDN'T FAIL to understand the concept in the first place), and d) ignores all the contrary evidence, e) then they go on to claim that they have undeniable proof that promptly gets torn to shreds due to a disagreement with reality, and f) THEN they claim that mainstream scientists are the hidebound ones unwilling to change a flawed paradigm. I've seen this happen a hundred times here in the last eight years, and none of them is ever able to do anything with these fantastic, unprecedented, outside-the-box ideas of theirs.

! Moderator Note Then it sounds like you're trolling for an emotional response for a reason (possibly) known only to the two of you. It's one thing to violate the Etiquette Guide, quite another to break the rules by trolling and hijacking the thread. Please stop now. And don't further derail the thread by responding to modnotes. If you have a problem with them, report them or contact a member of the staff.

So Paul Ryan forced his chicanery on a soup kitchen that could lose private and faith-based funding because of it, so he can win votes he wouldn't otherwise deserve to get elected and cut funding to other programs that help the poor. A new low for Team Romney.