And you thought global warming theory was B.S? This is even moreridiculous. Controlling gravity

wrote:
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 5:55:40 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 10:33:02 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
If you think global warming (which is an observation, not a theory) is
BS, you're not qualified to hold any opinion on scientific matters.

Nonsense.

One can legitimately dismiss this issue by noting the near-universal
hypocrisy of the warmingistas, whether they be scientists,
pseudo-scientists, faux-eco celebs, liberal dimwits, conniving, power
hungry politicians, or any combination thereof.


Using the same criteria one can dismiss all the statements of the rich that
making them richer will help the poor.

Henry Ford became very rich by producing a car that the masses could afford.

So your statement is wrong and your analogy stinks in any case, but thanks for playing.





Ford paid his workers twice the going rate. That's not the "trickle down
economics" fallacy of the Reagan/Thatcher conspiracy years which has
steadily reduced the pay of manual (you would say "blue collar" workers.

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 7:44:30 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 5:55:40 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 10:33:02 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
If you think global warming (which is an observation, not a theory) is
BS, you're not qualified to hold any opinion on scientific matters.

Nonsense.

One can legitimately dismiss this issue by noting the near-universal
hypocrisy of the warmingistas, whether they be scientists,
pseudo-scientists, faux-eco celebs, liberal dimwits, conniving, power
hungry politicians, or any combination thereof.


Using the same criteria one can dismiss all the statements of the rich that
making them richer will help the poor.

Henry Ford became very rich by producing a car that the masses could afford.

So your statement is wrong and your analogy stinks in any case, but thanks for playing.

Ford paid his workers twice the going rate.

Irrelevant. The masses to which I referred are the BUYERS of his cars, not his employees.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 02:23:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 6:54:18 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 15:34:31 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Not the most common usage of the words. But as usual, you cherry pick.

Those two words are synonymous in most dictionaries.

Only because you choose to isolate the words from the context in which
I used them.

So you are using them in a "special" way that is meaningless outside of your little dream world.

I'm using them appropriately in this context. But the concept of
"context" is beyond your simple, over-medicated mind.

On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 03:22:51 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35861334

Follow-up. BBC just did a "Horizon" episode of this ridiculousness.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0752f85

RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 03:22:51 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35861334

Follow-up. BBC just did a "Horizon" episode of this ridiculousness.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0752f85



Which,as I already posted I saw last night.

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:14:45 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 02:23:44 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 6:54:18 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 15:34:31 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Not the most common usage of the words. But as usual, you cherry pick.

Those two words are synonymous in most dictionaries.

Only because you choose to isolate the words from the context in which
I used them.

So you are using them in a "special" way that is meaningless outside of your little dream world.

I'm using them appropriately in this context.

No, actually -I- am using them appropriately in this context.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:00:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:14:45 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 02:23:44 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 6:54:18 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 15:34:31 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Not the most common usage of the words. But as usual, you cherry pick.

Those two words are synonymous in most dictionaries.

Only because you choose to isolate the words from the context in which
I used them.

So you are using them in a "special" way that is meaningless outside of your little dream world.

I'm using them appropriately in this context.

No, actually -I- am using them appropriately in this context.

Yes, in your mind, I'm sure that's true. You're obviously not a
skeptic in the sense that you base your ideas on evidence. You are
only a skeptic in the sense that your dogma makes you doubt things,
even things which it makes no sense to doubt. So yes, in your small
mind, there's no difference between skepticism and doubt.

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 12:53:10 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:00:06 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:14:45 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 02:23:44 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 6:54:18 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 15:34:31 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Not the most common usage of the words. But as usual, you cherry pick.

Those two words are synonymous in most dictionaries.

Only because you choose to isolate the words from the context in which
I used them.

So you are using them in a "special" way that is meaningless outside of your little dream world.

I'm using them appropriately in this context.

No, actually -I- am using them appropriately in this context.

Yes

It's good that you agree.

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 4:12:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 7:03:56 PM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:

"That mean's ALL" .. ?? An apostrophe means possession of (the next word).

That is what is known as a typo, you idiot. Your idiotic comment will be noted and used against when you make a typo.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 11:53:10 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:00:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:14:45 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 02:23:44 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 6:54:18 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 15:34:31 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Not the most common usage of the words. But as usual, you cherry pick.

Those two words are synonymous in most dictionaries.

Only because you choose to isolate the words from the context in which
I used them.

So you are using them in a "special" way that is meaningless outside of your little dream world.

I'm using them appropriately in this context.

No, actually -I- am using them appropriately in this context.

Yes, in your mind, I'm sure that's true. You're obviously not a
skeptic in the sense that you base your ideas on evidence. You are
only a skeptic in the sense that your dogma makes you doubt things,
even things which it makes no sense to doubt. So yes, in your small
mind, there's no difference between skepticism and doubt.

Its long been known by marketing folks that data (even very good data) rarely changes a persons position on a topic...so irrespective of the issue (name your topic), the idea that giving folks, however well educated, data that challenges a diametrically opposed view and thinking it will change their mind...naive.