Arete Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 What do you know of Gneiss, schists, chert, erosion and sediment , by your profile I thought you were an atomic submarine optical specialist/expert , not a Geologist Whats going on here , everyone's suddenly become an Earth Science enthusiast ! He has quite the conglomerate of knowledge, it quite comendite-able. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 7, 2013 Author Share Posted March 7, 2013 I am the very model of a modern major general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) I am the very model of a modern major general. Good night Gilbert o suliven , I miss read you all along. You really are multi-disciplined He has quite the conglomerate of knowledge, it quite comendite-able. Not another one, I get the feeling ,there is a ganging up ,going on. There I was trying to be serious having made a study this Wednesday, then made a painting that day, with my tongue in cheek, about real serious Omani Ophiolite , Imatfaal has a much better picture at his fingertips , and the real Ophiolite is no where to be seen, and I am taking the flack ! Edited March 7, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
36grit Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I am not a quack, I'm just way ahead of time LOL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Good night Gilbert o suliven , I miss read you all along. You really are multi-disciplined Not another one, I get the feeling ,there is a ganging up ,going on. There I was trying to be serious having made a study this Wednesday, then made a painting that day, with my tongue in cheek, about real serious Omani Ophiolite , Imatfaal has a much better picture at his fingertips , and the real Ophiolite is no where to be seen, and I am taking the flack ! These days my relation with geology is purely plutonic; I was very interested as a younger man as I believed it was the only science where dropping acid was acceptable and when one got boulder one could write papers on measuring a dyke's cleavage. But then I realised the competition was too fierce - too many people out standing in their field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 A lawyer has to know what rocks look like - because rock/paper/scissors plays a much bigger role in the courtroom than most judges are willing to admit. FTFY On topic, I think we should sticky the original article. We have some amateur trolls and quacks that could learn from that. I love a good troll... it's the bad ones that annoy me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 What is the percentage of quacks on this forum ? How many threads from quacks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 8, 2013 Author Share Posted March 8, 2013 What is the percentage of quacks on this forum ? How many threads from quacks? Speculations has over 3000 threads, and the trash can almost a tenth of that. So, even given some legitimate speculation that's not contrary to established science, undeleted spam, duplication, etc., I'd say a thousand quack threads — threads that agree/identify with the satire in the article — is a reasonable minimum estimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) I would expect more than one/day. -------------------- I just noticed there is no external info about SFN, not even a wiki article. Edited March 8, 2013 by michel123456 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 I found thay your geological puns are a bit quakey. Theres too much on my plate to let people rock my mind with watered down sediments towards an unnamed quack that burst through the crust of modern science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Quack threads are the most fun, you knock em down and I'll stomp on em... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 I'm in. There are several I got my sights on, but I don't want to get banned lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alrah Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Where does 'status quo bias' enter into this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 13, 2013 Author Share Posted March 13, 2013 Where does 'status quo bias' enter into this? It doesn't. The OP was satire about quacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Where does 'status quo bias' enter into this? Generally it's taken for granite that the statues quo are founded on bedrock. 1130a. When thou sayest, "statues", in respect to these stones, 1130b. which are like fledglings of swallows under the river-bank; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now