Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 10:45:16 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Drivel snipped...

Wow! That 60mm refractor must have done even more damage to your already feeble little mind than was first supposed!

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:14:38 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Once again, you're simply
focusing on a word and insisting that only your definition is valid.

Unlike the case of "autonomous", where he is using an etymologically-based
definition and ignoring ones commonly appearing in dictionaries, in this case he
is using he meaning of "perfect" that is commonly understood by most people.

John Savard

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 3:24:44 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:14:38 AM UTC-6, peterson wrote:
Once again, you're simply
focusing on a word and insisting that only your definition is valid.

Unlike the case of "autonomous", where he is using an etymologically-based
definition and ignoring ones commonly appearing in dictionaries,

Actually, I am looking at the dictionary definitions of "autonomous" and "automated" and deciding that "automated" is the more apt description of robots.

On Wed, 11 May 2016 12:24:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:14:38 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Once again, you're simply
focusing on a word and insisting that only your definition is valid.

Unlike the case of "autonomous", where he is using an etymologically-based
definition and ignoring ones commonly appearing in dictionaries, in this case he
is using he meaning of "perfect" that is commonly understood by most people.

So what. I actually defined in my comments what I meant by "perfect",
and he chooses to ignore that in favor of his own definition. That
just demonstrates ignorance and stupidity.

On Wed, 11 May 2016 13:05:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 3:24:44 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:14:38 AM UTC-6, peterson wrote:
Once again, you're simply
focusing on a word and insisting that only your definition is valid.

Unlike the case of "autonomous", where he is using an etymologically-based
definition and ignoring ones commonly appearing in dictionaries,

Actually, I am looking at the dictionary definitions of "autonomous" and "automated" and deciding that "automated" is the more apt description of robots.

Automated and autonomous mean completely different things. The Mars
rovers are both.

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 5:49:47 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 13:05:03 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 3:24:44 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:14:38 AM UTC-6, peterson wrote:
Once again, you're simply
focusing on a word and insisting that only your definition is valid.

Unlike the case of "autonomous", where he is using an etymologically-based
definition and ignoring ones commonly appearing in dictionaries,

Actually, I am looking at the dictionary definitions of "autonomous" and "automated" and deciding that "automated" is the more apt description of robots.

Automated and autonomous mean completely different things.

"Autonomous" means essentially "self-governing," which Mars rovers obviously are not.

The Mars
rovers are both.

They are automated but without instructions from humans they do nothing, and so are NOT autonomous.

Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp? Were you not programmed correctly, peterson?

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 5:49:06 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 12:24:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:14:38 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Once again, you're simply
focusing on a word and insisting that only your definition is valid.

Unlike the case of "autonomous", where he is using an etymologically-based
definition and ignoring ones commonly appearing in dictionaries, in this case he
is using he meaning of "perfect" that is commonly understood by most people.

So what. I actually defined in my comments what I meant by "perfect",
and he chooses to ignore that in favor of his own definition. That
just demonstrates ignorance and stupidity.

You claimed that "NG is a perfect theory" when clearly it is not a "perfect theory."

On Thu, 12 May 2016 05:06:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 5:49:06 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 12:24:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:14:38 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Once again, you're simply
focusing on a word and insisting that only your definition is valid.

Unlike the case of "autonomous", where he is using an etymologically-based
definition and ignoring ones commonly appearing in dictionaries, in this case he
is using he meaning of "perfect" that is commonly understood by most people.

So what. I actually defined in my comments what I meant by "perfect",
and he chooses to ignore that in favor of his own definition. That
just demonstrates ignorance and stupidity.

You claimed that "NG is a perfect theory" when clearly it is not a "perfect theory."

Go away, child. This discussion is far beyond your intellectual
capacity.

On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 9:35:02 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 05:06:37 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 5:49:06 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 12:24:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:14:38 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Once again, you're simply
focusing on a word and insisting that only your definition is valid.

Unlike the case of "autonomous", where he is using an etymologically-based
definition and ignoring ones commonly appearing in dictionaries, in this case he
is using he meaning of "perfect" that is commonly understood by most people.

So what. I actually defined in my comments what I meant by "perfect",
and he chooses to ignore that in favor of his own definition. That
just demonstrates ignorance and stupidity.

You claimed that "NG is a perfect theory" when clearly it is not a "perfect theory."

Go away, child. This discussion is far beyond your intellectual
capacity.

If NG were a "perfect theory" it would be able to explain the orbit of Mercury. YOUR definition of "perfect" is therefore irrelevant.

Clearly you have have lost the argument, peterson. Instead of "engaged discussion" you have resorted to "empty insults."

You should be ashamed of yourself.

On Thursday, 12 May 2016 15:43:24 UTC+2, wrote:
On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 9:35:02 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 05:06:37 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 5:49:06 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 12:24:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:14:38 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Once again, you're simply
focusing on a word and insisting that only your definition is valid.

Unlike the case of "autonomous", where he is using an etymologically-based
definition and ignoring ones commonly appearing in dictionaries, in this case he
is using he meaning of "perfect" that is commonly understood by most people.

So what. I actually defined in my comments what I meant by "perfect",
and he chooses to ignore that in favor of his own definition. That
just demonstrates ignorance and stupidity.

You claimed that "NG is a perfect theory" when clearly it is not a "perfect theory."

Go away, child. This discussion is far beyond your intellectual
capacity.

If NG were a "perfect theory" it would be able to explain the orbit of Mercury. YOUR definition of "perfect" is therefore irrelevant.

Clearly you have have lost the argument, peterson. Instead of "engaged discussion" you have resorted to "empty insults."

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Gentlemen, may I hold your coats?