Phi for All

First, agentchange, I apologize for my earlier tone. While I can't dim my passion for this country and it's people, I certainly should be capable of keeping a civil level of dialogue going and not feel the need to let off steam in someone's face. Forgive me, that was no way to start off a discussion of this importance. Mea culpa. It's always seemed plainly (but circumstantially) evident to me that small little hate-filled extremist fringe groups like Al Qaeda could never function without wealthy sponsors who are *much less zealous* about what drives the fringe group than they are about the benefits the sponsor derives from the actions of the extremists. Without sponsorship terrorist cells would have no teeth. I don't think the religious angle is the smart choice to play. It's unbeatable really since you can't argue with dogma. I say find out what cartels are footing the bill and go after them. Look for arms merchants, military technology specialists, all the folks who really profit from giving some pathetically backward zealots a bunch of money, munitions and training. Let me ask you this: if something happened that absolutely convinced *even you* that the US was headed towards becoming a Gestapo state just because of the Patriot Act, what would you advise everyone to do? How would it be different than what's being suggested? Do you think a Gestapo state might be better for us?

Think about a bird's flapping wings and which way the power of the thrust goes. Also think about a bird gliding (without flapping it's wings) and how it's wings are held when it glides. None of this can be reversed effectively by the bird and still maintain flight. They just aren't built for it.

For what one, the Patriot Act? Only one Senator didn't vote for it, unfortunately. I have nothing to hide, and *everything* to protect. Oh, you better be kidding.... We have a very desirable country and I like it that way. Get over it. Strawman and Misleading Vividness, both examples of horrible logic. Great, then we won't need folks like you who aren't willing to fight for their rights as free citizens of the US. Lots of very smart people. I carry a little paranoia around with me all the time now, ever since the Patriot Act was voted on before most had even finished reading it.

Wow, I really dislike having a thread on our forum speculating on the psychiatric stability of someone we've only seen in media clips. I'll defer to Glider on whether this thread can stay here or not. It's just so unscientific since we have so few facts about Sgt. Peterson's mental history.

Oh, it's you again! More gorilla / origin of the white race / mixing paint pots / my opinion is fact but you're too blind to see it / all humans evolved from apes BULLSHIT. Goody. Humans did NOT evolve from apes, you know. Apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. You were told that the last time you were here. You get some points on the Baez scale for that. It IS offensive when you spout your opinion as fact: These are your opinions. You can't back them up with objective facts. You need to write this type of treatise using phrases like, "in my opinion", "from what I have observed", "it seems to me", and my personal favorite, "You may not agree with me, but I think ...." You've done it in a few places but you need to make it clear every time you are stating your opinion. On topics like the one on which you've chosen to obsess, stating opinion as fact borders on gender discrimination. You sound like you are saying it's a fact that the whole universe is male dominant and really, how could you possibly know *that*?

As long as we're telling *true stories, did I ever tell you about the car I tried to make by myself? I took the tires and wheels from a Cadillac, the engine from a Ford, the transmission from a Chrysler, the chassis from a Plymouth and the body from a Lamborghini. Do you know what I ended up with? Two years and probation. * meaning "imaginary"

"And the man thus threw up his hands in frustration, crying, 'Bingo!'" Fallacians 12:23

The symphony orchestra was performing Beethoven's Ninth. In the piece, there's a long passage, about 20 minutes, during which the bass violinists have nothing to do. Rather than sit around that whole time looking stupid, some bassists decided to sneak offstage and go to the Tavern next door for a quick one. After slamming several beers in quick succession, one of them looked at his watch and said, "Hey! We need to get back!" "No need to panic," said a fellow bassist. "I thought we might need some extra time, so I tied the last few pages of the conductor's score together with string. It'll take him a few minutes to get it untangled." A few moments later they staggered back to the concert hall and took their places in the orchestra. About this time, a member of the audience noticed the conductor seemed a bit edgy and said as much to her companion. "Well, of course," said her companion. "Don't you see? It's the bottom of the Ninth, the score is tied, and the bassists are loaded."

I like the first sentence, I like it a lot. The shorthand, however, is what gives most religious types the impression that science hates religion. Occam's Razor usually doesn't work for me in discussions with religious people since they insist that *their* God is necessary. This is where I separate religion from spirituality. I can believe there is a possibility of some higher power in the universe (one that works within the boundaries of physics instead of being simply omnipotent) but I can't believe in a supposedly loving God who will suddenly make Himself known to the world, praising the *one* religion that got it right and laughing at all the rest as He sends them to oblivion for believing in what they were taught.

Two whales, a male and female, are swimming off the coast of Japan when the male whale looks up and sees the whaling ship that killed his father five years before. Excited at the opportunity to avenge his father's death, the male whale says to the female, "Let's go underneath the ship and blow air through our blow holes. That ought to knock their boat over, and make them think twice about killing innocent whales." The female whale agrees, and the plan works perfectly. Once the whaling ship has completely sunk, the male whale notices that most of the sailors are making their way back to the shore by either swimming or in lifeboats. Not willing to let them get away so easily, the male whale yells, "They're going to shore - Let's go gobble them up!" Just then, the female whale stops dead in the water and says, "Look, I agreed to blowing them, but there is NO WAY I'm swallowing seamen!"

More or less, but ParanoiA said it more like I would have said it and my ego was thus sated. The lack of evidence doesn't mean evidence of lack. It just means a god that chooses not to be observed can't be measured properly by the scientific method. At best a skeptical "maybe" can be applied. However, I was mistaken in my definition of "null hypothesis", thinking that it meant God as a concept was unclassifiable and therefore outside of science. I see that it really means that it makes no difference or has no effect on any conclusions and I agree that God doesn't fit into *that* classification.

We've sent several tinfoil types over to Sciforums. They are much more lenient (and verbally abusive) with unscientific speculation. PhysicsForums would most likely trash his thread the minute it was posted. We fall somewhere in between and I like it that way. Chuck got 72 posts at Sciforums (IIRC) but only got 21 here. Of course, part of Chuck's body of work at Sciforums was a second thread cursing all those filthy Jew Mods that work there, keeping the truth from... the non-Jewish, truth-seeking, open-eyed, anti-nuke, good guy types. rolleyes, rolleyes, rolleyes, ad infinitum.

This is exactly the way I look at it. God can't be observed, by His own definition, and requires His followers to simply have faith that He exists. That puts Him outside of any type of scientific methodology. The very best science can say is that there remains a minuscule possibility that a higher power exists that we haven't yet seen evidence of. Skepticism rules. Flat out denial seems to be a very extravagant conclusion.

I have removed the url posted in the OP in case this is spamvertising (new join + link to sales site = the possibility). Anyone able to answer the OP's question will already know about the Labo AXL compound microscope and won't need the link. And of course, I'm sure Googling Labo AXL compound microscope will bring up the site if you need it.

Whew! I was hoping that would get your attention. I can't stress enough how dangerous, even outside, any amount of these gases can be. insane_alien was NOT joking when he said it only takes a small amount to hurt you. And with gases you may not feel the damage right away. DON'T SCREW UP YOUR FUTURE!

This is like watching a train wreck in slow-motion!! Melvin, I sincerely hope you don't do this. If you do, after everything that's been said, I hope you haven't passed your genes along to the next generation. Seriously, you selfish bastard, think of all the people who will have to suffer for your idiocy!

This thread has been edited and placed back into the main forum for further replies (the OP will not be joining us). ChuckWest revealed his true colors when he began an anti-Semitic rant late in the thread. Those comments have been removed and the thread reinstated to Pseudoscience, mainly because of the time spent trying to debunk this particular conspiracy theory. And also because ChuckWest is the absolute crown in our crackpot collection and we wanted to share his particular POV. Blindsight is 20/0, after all.

He did try to link the holocaust, the nuclear bombings and our use of nuclear power as one big conspiracy. Those Jews sure are clever.

We had to yoink it when his real agenda became apparent. He's banned now so we'll most likely edit the racist bits and repost in in Pseudoscience. He will be the solid gold wok in our crackpot collection.

I didn't get to say it yesterday amidst the incredulity generated by that atom-challenged anti-Semite Chuck(full of crap)West, but it sure is nice to have you back, JaKiri.

Always? I think this is where you've gone wrong, Chuck. An omnipotent God creating the universe in 6 days sounds more believable than the unbelievably intricate and time-intensive way it really happened. I've often found the truth can be quite astonishing.

Klanos, *you* said it'd be batteries. *I* know that subs can't stay submerged as long as they do without a system to recharge them, and there's just not enough room on one to host a normal power plant AND a fake nuclear reactor. I guess the Navy angle isn't going to work though 'cause Chuck won't be satisfied until YDOAPS actually climbs *into* the core to prove nuclear physics is true (at least YDOAPS isn't sailing a sub up DENIAL river...).

It's pretty amazing how many things become absolute fact when you simply deny the existence of nuclear power. It's... well, it's damned convenient, especially when you're trying to convince the world there's been a coverup involving literally millions of people for almost 70 years. All so the public won't find out about... um, what were we covering up again? Why does it benefit so many to lie about their super-high efficiency batteries and their other amazing technology with a story about... well, other amazing technology?

Be prepared to think quickly when our Navy nuclear tech mentions the reactors he works with are not big buildings, but rather limited-space floating structures called ships and submarines. Do you have a canned response for that, too? Do you have a canned response for that, too?

I think Chuck has already covered that. Anyone who actually witnessed the blasts were obviously in on the conspiracy. And this can't be Begging the Question because Chuck knows all about circular logic; he said so earlier.