Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox

"Dave O'Neill" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Dave O'Neill" wrote:
:
: :
: :"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
: .. .
: : "Dave O'Neill" wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :"Androcles" wrote in message
: : ...
: : :
: : : "Ian Parker" wrote in message
: : : ps.com...
: : : :
: : : : The BBC does not adverise.
: : : :
: : :
: : : Nor does PBS.
: : :
: : :
: : :PBS doesn't run a news service or make much original programming content
: : :does it?
: : :
: :
: : Of course it does.
: :
: :Could you provide some examples of the content and their news feeds for me
: :to consider then?
: :
:
: McNeil-Lehrer New Hour. National Public Radio News. Need I continue?
:
:Yes, really, I listen to NPR - it's not a patch on Radio 4. I particularly
:enjoyed a live outside broadcast they did from a political rally a couple of
:years ago where their reported carried it by holding up his mobile phone.
:Very strong that.
:
:How about their original drama content?
:

The discussion isn't about "drama content". The problem with the Beeb
is that too much of their news appears to be "drama content".


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Hop David wrote:

ave O'Neill wrote:
:
: "Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
: ...
:
:"Dave O'Neill" wrote:
:
:Poor Dave. People keep insulting him BACK.
:
:How does pointing out the facts make me "a rather nasty piece of
:work", unless facts are somehow anathema to you?
:
: Well, firstly both you and Rand have a rather weird view of "facts", and
: secondly you started with the name calling.
:
:Check out Fred's posts. If he's still sticking to his old, tired habits,
:about 80% of his posts will be content-free, lame insults exchanged with
:Chomko. Another 15% will be the same but with other idiots and trolls. A
:small fraction will be on-topic. But this small fraction tend to be
:unoriginal and/or ill informed.
:

Poor Hop. He just can't stand it when everyone doesn't use his own
personal killfile. He also hates it, of course, when people point out
he's mistaken about something yet again.

Back to junior high school, Hop. That's about where such 'clique'
behaviour belongs.


--
"Oooo, scary! Y'know, there are a lot scarier things
in the world than you ... and I'm one of them."

-- Buffy the vampire

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 20 Aug, 21:06, Einar wrote:
:
: If you read through the posts here you will find a number of examples
: of what I am talking about, words like idiot, insane, stupit being
: thrown about used as a form of a personal attack. Really, there is
: very, very rarelly if ever a reason to speak in that manner, even
: though you find the view of the other person stupit or even
: distasteful. Mind you, I think it´s ok to say you think that a view
: being expressed is stupid, if you are careful to make sure you are
: only referring to the view not the person.
:
:I agree. I have only done it to people who have done it to me.
:

And so say we all. Funny, that...

:
:Also I
:wonder something. Fred McCall and Rand Simberg talk in very much the
:same way. I wionder if this is a function of their background and
:training. If it is it is extremely disturbing.
:

Ian, everyone who finds your perpetual bloviation tiresome need not
have the same "background and training". All it takes is the ability
to differentiate between fantasy and fact.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

"Dave O'Neill" wrote:

:
:I think I've had enough. My tolerance is lower than it was a decade ago.
:

So's mine. No doubt so is Rand's. The preponderance of 'pop-up
idiots' like Hop, Ian, etc has a lot to do with that...


--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

"Dave O'Neill" wrote:

:
:"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
: On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:29:31 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
: O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:
:
:
:"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
: On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:34:01 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
: O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:
:
:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
om...
: "Dave O'Neill" wrote:
:
: :
: :Sorry, I'm not clear how repeating what somebody has said publically
: in
: many
: :forums over many years counts as an "ad hominem" - the source itself
: and
: :Murdoch both really do bring the veracity into question all by
: themselves.
: :
:
: You obviously don't know what an ad hominem argument is.
:
: First hint: It's not a noun.
:
:And so, the context matters and in this context what Einar said isn't an ad
:hominem, except under some really really twisted logic which you and Rand
:seem to share.
:
: Of *course* it's an ad hominem argument. It's a textbook example of
: one. When one's response to a debating point is to impugn the source,
: that is the very definition of an ad hominem argument.
:
:Rupert Murdoch is a ******, you can't trust him in anything - is an ad
:homimen. I've not attacked the argument about the BBC, I've just attacked
:Rupert.
:
: To what end? What does what you think about Rupert Murdoch have to do
: with the subject at hand?
:
:Einar made a statement about Murdoch, which you called an adhomiem. I
ointed out that it is not, it's a position of fact.

Whether or not a statement is true is irrelevant to whether or not
that statement is an ad hominem argument.

One more time:

1) Ad hominem is not a noun.

2) Ad hominem remarks needn't be false. They only need to be a
misdirection.

3) Ad hominem remarks needn't be negative. That's a particular
subspecies of the fallacy known as ad hominem (abusive).

In the case at hand, whether or not Murdoch likes the Beeb is
irrelevant to the truth or falsity of any particularly statement about
the Beeb that may appear in Murdoch-owned media. If the argument is
that a particular statement is false, pointing to Murdoch's opinion of
the Beeb as somehow 'proving' that falsity is the very definition of
an ad hominem argument. This is particularly true because no proof is
offered as to whether or not Murdoch's views on the Beeb are
justifiable or not.

Please educate yourself, Dave.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:51:26 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:49:40 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


You're also capable of providing useful information and original
insights.
For this reason I'll tolerate your wasting time with Fred.

I think I've had enough. My tolerance is lower than it was a decade
ago.

And you think mine isn't?

No, actually, yours seems to be higher

It's either that, or you're getting some sort of cathartic release from
these pointless snarky posts you keep making. If you had a lower
tolerance
you'd killfile more people and resist replying to the dumber trolls.

I've been really good about avoiding the threads in here - I only took a
peak out of curiosity to see if anything had improved, and frankly, it
hasn't.

shrug

Your ability to exercise logic certainly hasn't.

There you go again.

Is it a personality trait? Are you this obnoxious in real life?

I'm curious.

Dave

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Dave O'Neill" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
:
: Poor Dave. People keep insulting him BACK.
:
: How does pointing out the facts make me "a rather nasty piece of
: work", unless facts are somehow anathema to you?
:
:
:Well, firstly both you and Rand have a rather weird view of "facts",
:

And that "weird view" is apparently that, unlike you, we actually use
some.

:... and
:secondly you started with the name calling.
:

Yeah, sure. It's always the other guy, isn't it?

:
:I've a fairly thick skin myself, but you seem to be really easy to get to
:start with real ad hominems.
:

You should really stop using the phrase 'ad hominem' until you
understand what it means.

Hint: It's not a noun.

Hint: It doesn't mean "he said something bad about me".

No, it means you attack the person not the argument. Reporting that X is on
the record as not liking Y is not attacking X it is reporting a fact about
X.

By your rather tortured logic "George Bush Sr. detests celery" would class
as an ad hominem.

Likewise X is a nut, or "logic was never your strong point" or "that's
typical for you" etc... are all classes of Ad Hominems as he's not
countering the argument made, he's calling into question the competence of
the person to make it.

The only way that you and Rand can get your knickers in a twist about this
is if you have some personal axe to grind about what it is that the person
detests but that still doesn't make an Ad Hominem.

Dave

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Dave O'Neill" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Dave O'Neill" wrote:
:
: :
: :"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
: .. .
: : "Dave O'Neill" wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :"Androcles" wrote in message
: : ...
: : :
: : : "Ian Parker" wrote in message
: : : ps.com...
: : : :
: : : : The BBC does not adverise.
: : : :
: : :
: : : Nor does PBS.
: : :
: : :
: : :PBS doesn't run a news service or make much original programming
content
: : :does it?
: : :
: :
: : Of course it does.
: :
: :Could you provide some examples of the content and their news feeds
for me
: :to consider then?
: :
:
: McNeil-Lehrer New Hour. National Public Radio News. Need I continue?
:
:Yes, really, I listen to NPR - it's not a patch on Radio 4. I
particularly
:enjoyed a live outside broadcast they did from a political rally a couple
of
:years ago where their reported carried it by holding up his mobile phone.
:Very strong that.
:
:How about their original drama content?
:

The discussion isn't about "drama content". The problem with the Beeb
is that too much of their news appears to be "drama content".

I mentioned "Original Programming" - you do know what an original programme
is don't you?

Dave

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:16:30 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

You're also capable of providing useful information and original
insights.
For this reason I'll tolerate your wasting time with Fred.

I think I've had enough. My tolerance is lower than it was a decade
ago.

And you think mine isn't?

No, actually, yours seems to be higher

It's either that, or you're getting some sort of cathartic release from
these pointless snarky posts you keep making. If you had a lower
tolerance
you'd killfile more people and resist replying to the dumber trolls.

I've been really good about avoiding the threads in here - I only took a
peak out of curiosity to see if anything had improved, and frankly, it
hasn't.

shrug

Your ability to exercise logic certainly hasn't.

There you go again.

Is it a personality trait? Are you this obnoxious in real life?

Only to people who are as obnoxious as you in real life. Or is it one
of your fantasies that you haven't been repeatedly and illogically
insulting me?

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:20:01 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


You should really stop using the phrase 'ad hominem' until you
understand what it means.

Hint: It's not a noun.

Hint: It doesn't mean "he said something bad about me".

No, it means you attack the person not the argument. Reporting that X is on
the record as not liking Y is not attacking X it is reporting a fact about
X.

By your rather tortured logic "George Bush Sr. detests celery" would class
as an ad hominem.

There's only one person torturing logic here. You.

Your idiotic example would only be an ad hominem argument if it were
being used to advance some other proposition. Neither insults, nor
even factually correct statements are, in themselves, an ad hominem
argument. But when one's response to an article stating that the BBC
is biased is that Rupert Murdoch dislikes the BBC, it is a classic ad
hominem argument. And if one isn't making such an argument, there is
no point to stating that Rupert Murdoch dislikes the BBC.