Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox

On Aug 31, 3:19 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Eric Chomko wrote:

:On Aug 26, 7:07 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:: Einar wrote:

: :
: :You own words: "When I call a person an idiot, or nuts, it because of
: :a long-time pattern of idiocy or nuttiness, not an isolated instance.
: :"
:
: And in your case the shoe would appear to be a perfect fit, Einar.
:
:
:Ah, the McCall and Simberg position; one is stupid or insane until
roven smart or sane. It is a metaphor of the legal postistion of
:"guilty until proven innocent".
:

Not what it says, Chomko. I'll simply note that "a long-time pattern
of idiocy or nuttiness" isn't anywhere close to "stupid or insane
until proven smart or sane".

The point is that you and Rand lack the right to judge others as being
stupid or
insane given your stupidity and insanity. It is the judgemental nature
of you two clowns that I was referring to.


You, of course, have years of history proving you are both stupid and
insane.

Yep, right on cue. Keep adding to your Internet dossier, McClod. I
noticed you chickened out of the other thread regarding CISC vs.
RISC.

:
:What a stupid and insane position to have!
:

Yes, it would be. The only thing stupider would be your ongoing
inability to actually read and comprehend basic declarative English
sentences, as we see once again above.

You're so easy to rile, McClod. The irony of course is that Rand has
you killfiled, and you call Ian, Einar and I all nuts, yet you
obviously view yourself as the pinnacle of sanity.

Who was it and what did you actually do to have that curse put on you?

On Aug 26, 7:02 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:45:04 -0700, in a place far, far away, Einar
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

You own words: "When I call a person an idiot, or nuts, it because of
a long-time pattern of idiocy or nuttiness, not an isolated instance.

And given that this is your only response to a long-winded post,
wasting my and others' bandwidth, I guess it's time for the killfile.

*plonk*

Proves you lose again, Rand...

On 31 Aug, 16:13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

:On 31 Aug, 04:07, Fred J. McCall wrote:: Einar wrote:

:
: :
: :ONE OF THE ISSUES WHICH STILL REMAIN UNCLEAR IS PRECISELLY HOW GREAT
: :AMOUNT OF ANTRAX WAS MADE, AND PRECISELLY HOW MUCH OF IT WAS DISPOSED
: :OF IN 1991.
: :
:
: Quite right. They could have made MORE than reported.
:
:
:Surely the real issue was whether Hans Blix and the inspection team
:could go where they wanted. As I understand it after a little humming
:and haing over presidential sites they were allowed into Saddam
:Hussein's palaces.
:

That "humming and haing" amounted to "the United States is about to
invade if better access isn't forthcoming". At that point it was
pretty much too late to turn things back.

Even at that they were still getting intermittent barriers to free
inspection right up to just before the actual invasion.

As I see it Saddam was pretty much constrained. The Gulf war ceasefire
seemed to work.
:
:The issue is what the inspectors found when they did their inspection,
:which as I understand it ranged from nothing to trace amounts of
:mustard gas. These came (probably) from old destroyed stocks.
:

The real issue is what the inspectors MISSED, which amounted to
hundreds of rounds of everything from mustard gas to binary VX that we
didn't even know Saddam had.

And those have now been found?

What was NOT found (and what every intelligence agency in the world
believed would be found) was evidence of a current and ongoing program
to further develop and produce such things. Apparently Saddam's
violations in the present were limited to his missile programs.

However, from the samples that were found in hidden storage, it's
pretty obvious his intent was to reconstitute his programs once he was
out from under the sanctions and inspections.

Yes I expect he would have without the régime of inspections. But it
working.


- Ian Parker

Eric Chomko wrote:

:On Aug 31, 3:19 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
:
: :On Aug 26, 7:07 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:: Einar wrote:
:
: : :
: : :You own words: "When I call a person an idiot, or nuts, it because of
: : :a long-time pattern of idiocy or nuttiness, not an isolated instance.
: : :"
: :
: : And in your case the shoe would appear to be a perfect fit, Einar.
: :
: :
: :Ah, the McCall and Simberg position; one is stupid or insane until
: roven smart or sane. It is a metaphor of the legal postistion of
: :"guilty until proven innocent".
: :
:
: Not what it says, Chomko. I'll simply note that "a long-time pattern
: of idiocy or nuttiness" isn't anywhere close to "stupid or insane
: until proven smart or sane".
:
:The point is that you and Rand lack the right to judge others as being
:stupid or
:insane given your stupidity and insanity. It is the judgemental nature
f you two clowns that I was referring to.
:

So you were being your usual unclear self in trying to restate what
you claimed my position was?

You lied again, Eric. You said my position was "one is stupid or
insane until proven smart or sane". This is not and has never been my
position. You said this in response to the statement "When I call a
person an idiot, or nuts, it because of a long-time pattern of idiocy
or nuttiness, not an isolated instance." as if your remark was an
equivalent statement.

You are a liar, stupid, and insane.

:
:
: You, of course, have years of history proving you are both stupid and
: insane.
:
:
:Yep, right on cue. Keep adding to your Internet dossier, McClod. I
:noticed you chickened out of the other thread regarding CISC vs.
:RISC.
:

What are you gibbering about now?

Hint: I generally don't bother with your lunacy unless I have
absolutely nothing else to do.

:
:
: :
: :What a stupid and insane position to have!
: :
:
: Yes, it would be. The only thing stupider would be your ongoing
: inability to actually read and comprehend basic declarative English
: sentences, as we see once again above.
:
:
:You're so easy to rile, McClod.
:

'Rile'? Poor, self-important Eric. The only way he can matter is if
he thinks his antics affect someone.

Sadly for him, they don't.

:
:The irony of course is that Rand has
:you killfiled, and you call Ian, Einar and I all nuts, yet you
bviously view yourself as the pinnacle of sanity.
:

Compared to you, El Chimpko, Brad Guth is the pinnacle of sanity. At
least he's so nuts that he's funny.

Have you noticed that Rand and I are both telling you the same thing,
giving you the same corrections to your lies, and both think you're
both stupid and nuts?

:
:Who was it and what did you actually do to have that curse put on you?
:

I don't know why you're so attracted to me, Eric. All I can do is
keep telling you 'no'.


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

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:31:57 -0700, in a place far, far away, Eric
Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


:Ah, the McCall and Simberg position; one is stupid or insane until
roven smart or sane. It is a metaphor of the legal postistion of
:"guilty until proven innocent".
:

Not what it says, Chomko. I'll simply note that "a long-time pattern
of idiocy or nuttiness" isn't anywhere close to "stupid or insane
until proven smart or sane".

The point is that you and Rand lack the right to judge others as being
stupid or
insane given your stupidity and insanity.

Anyone has the right to judge anything they want, you moron.

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :ONE OF THE ISSUES WHICH STILL REMAIN UNCLEAR IS PRECISELLY HOW GREAT
: :AMOUNT OF ANTRAX WAS MADE, AND PRECISELLY HOW MUCH OF IT WAS DISPOSED
: :OF IN 1991.
: :
:
: Quite right. They could have made MORE than reported.
:
:
:...and also less.
:
:Logically speaking, more/less has to be considered equally likelly.
:

True, but from 'less' to 'none' is a pretty damned big stretch and
much less likely. Pretending that there really wasn't any in the
first place is rather like letting go of something and expecting it to
fall UP. The chance is there, but it's really, REALLY small.


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

For whatever it´s worth, it also was thought extremelly likelly that
he had still some poison gas shells tucked away for a rainy day. I for
one though so, at the time; even though I had actually mentioned it on
the phorum I was writing on that it was at least remotelly possible
that Saddam was telling the truth.

Iraq was such a utterly strange plase, it´s hard to say what is
likelly and/or not likelly.

Einar

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:


Hint: Get a logic book and look up "proving a negative".


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


Here, one of the examples easy to find on the net:

"Negative Proof refers to the fallacy of using an argument, about a
phenomenon P, of the form:

1. P has not been observed
2. Therefore P does not exist

An argument of this form is most convincing when the existence of P
seems implausible.
Relation to Denying The Antecedent

Negative Proof is a special case of the fallacy of Denying The
Antecedent if we accept the additional premise that observing a
phenomenon implies that it exists. With this additional premise, the
above argument can be rewritten:

1. If P has been observed then P exists
2. P has not been observed
3. Therefore P does not exist"


Mind you, you didn´t justify your claim in any fashion. You really
need to do that. You only asserted it to be true, i.e. "P is not
true".

You asserted P is not true, you didn´t justify that assertion in any
fashion. You ought to have shown some documentary evidence to give
your claim some credence, say documents arguing P has not be observed.
Then, and only then could you reasonably have said that P is not true.

You are yet to complete that minimum requirement. So, the ball is
still in your court, as I´ve been saying.

Einar

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Einar wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : Einar wrote:
: : :
: : : :
: : : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : : Einar wrote:
: : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : : : Einar wrote:
: : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : :Rand Simberg wrote:
: : : : : :
: : : : : : Do you think there's
: : : : : : anything wrong with slavery?
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : :Very simple to answere, would you want to be a slave? If you think
: : : : : :slavery is unfair treatment of you, it´s an unfair treatment of others
: : : : : :as well.
: : : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : : I wouldn't want to live in a country that mandated my religion,
: : : : : either.
: : : : :
: : : : : Do you think there is something wrong with such countries?
: : : : :
: : : : : I wouldn't want to live in a country that told me I wasn't allowed to
: : : : : be armed to protect myself (including from the government).
: : : : :
: : : : : Do you think there is something wrong with such countries?
: : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : : I'd suggest it's not so simple to answer as you think.
: : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :What I´m preaching is toleration.
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : Toleration of what? Suppose I want to keep slaves and Rand wants to
: : : : have sex with 7 year olds. How's your 'toleration' now?
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :Why do you pick such extreme examples?
: : : :
: : :
: : : Because you made a silly statement and I wanted to demonstrate its
: : : silliness.
: : :
: : :
: : :But they don´t do that. Just about any human endevour can be treated
: : :in like manner if most extreme examples of failure are only chosen.
: : :
: :
: : Then you need to stop making silly statements.
: :
: : :
: : :You need to pick more representative examples. After all, to name an
: : :example, no country in the world actually allows slavery. Though there
: : :are couple of countries in which slavery is still believed to persist,
: : :most of it happening inside Sudan. However, Sudan is an outlyer state,
: : racticing many things like genocide that generally are aborred by the
: : :world at large. So neither genocide nor slavery is representative.
: : :
: :
: : You need to stop making such general statements then, as if
: : "tolerance" is automatically a 'good thing'.
: :
: :I don´t think I ever said that all things should be tolerated, yet you
: :sort of haranged me like I had done just that, and so did Rand.
: :
:
: You said "What I am preaching is tolerance" with no conditionals at
: all. Now you're telling us you were lying and really only meant "What
: I am preaching is tolerance for things I think you should have
: tolerance for" or some such.
:
: : :
: : :If you read through my posts I´ve never preaced toleration of genocide
: : r slavery.
: : :
: :
: : You made a general, unqualified statement to try to proclaim your
: : position as 'better'.
: :
: :No, that was you falling to that conclusion. In other words reading
: :something into my statement which wasn´t contained within it.
: :
:
: I stupidly assumed you meant what you were saying. Now you tell us
: you were actually lying.
:
:
:I think it was quite clear enough the whole time, what I did mean. You
:and Rand chose to see it othervice.
:

Yes, it WAS "quite clear enough". What you meant to do was imply
"tolerance is good, hence my position is right". We're just showing
you (obviously against your will) that tolerance is not necessarily
good and so your position is not necessarily right and you need to
start using actual facts.

Whether or not "tolerance is good" rather depends on what is being
tolerated. Even you are admitting this, although you want to remain
in denial of the fact that it invalidates your earlier stated
position.


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

I only sayd "I´m preaching tolerance". Without any further definition
it could have been anywhere on the range from Zero to Perfect.

Yet, you and Rand simply assumed that this undefined statement meant
'perfect tolerance.'

I´m not going to comment on you 'ad hominem' attacks.

Einar

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 31 Aug, 16:13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: :On 31 Aug, 04:07, Fred J. McCall wrote:: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: : :
: : :ONE OF THE ISSUES WHICH STILL REMAIN UNCLEAR IS PRECISELLY HOW GREAT
: : :AMOUNT OF ANTRAX WAS MADE, AND PRECISELLY HOW MUCH OF IT WAS DISPOSED
: : :OF IN 1991.
: : :
: :
: : Quite right. They could have made MORE than reported.
: :
: :
: :Surely the real issue was whether Hans Blix and the inspection team
: :could go where they wanted. As I understand it after a little humming
: :and haing over presidential sites they were allowed into Saddam
: :Hussein's palaces.
: :
:
: That "humming and haing" amounted to "the United States is about to
: invade if better access isn't forthcoming". At that point it was
: pretty much too late to turn things back.
:
: Even at that they were still getting intermittent barriers to free
: inspection right up to just before the actual invasion.
:
:
:As I see it Saddam was pretty much constrained. The Gulf war ceasefire
:seemed to work.
:

Except he was about to 'get out of the box', which is the real reason
I favoured going in and taking him out.

:
:
: :
: :The issue is what the inspectors found when they did their inspection,
: :which as I understand it ranged from nothing to trace amounts of
: :mustard gas. These came (probably) from old destroyed stocks.
: :
:
: The real issue is what the inspectors MISSED, which amounted to
: hundreds of rounds of everything from mustard gas to binary VX that we
: didn't even know Saddam had.
:
:And those have now been found?
:

Several hundred rounds of them have, yes.

Have all of them been found? Who knows? Iraq is a big place with a
lot of desert to hide things in.

:
:
: What was NOT found (and what every intelligence agency in the world
: believed would be found) was evidence of a current and ongoing program
: to further develop and produce such things. Apparently Saddam's
: violations in the present were limited to his missile programs.
:
: However, from the samples that were found in hidden storage, it's
: pretty obvious his intent was to reconstitute his programs once he was
: out from under the sanctions and inspections.
:
:
:Yes I expect he would have without the régime of inspections. But it
:working.
:

And he was about to get out from under both inspections and embargo.

Then what?


--
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night
to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-- George Orwell

Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Einar wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :ONE OF THE ISSUES WHICH STILL REMAIN UNCLEAR IS PRECISELLY HOW GREAT
: : :AMOUNT OF ANTRAX WAS MADE, AND PRECISELLY HOW MUCH OF IT WAS DISPOSED
: : :OF IN 1991.
: : :
: :
: : Quite right. They could have made MORE than reported.
: :
: :
: :...and also less.
: :
: :Logically speaking, more/less has to be considered equally likelly.
: :
:
: True, but from 'less' to 'none' is a pretty damned big stretch and
: much less likely. Pretending that there really wasn't any in the
: first place is rather like letting go of something and expecting it to
: fall UP. The chance is there, but it's really, REALLY small.
:
:
:For whatever it´s worth, it also was thought extremelly likelly that
:he had still some poison gas shells tucked away for a rainy day. I for
ne though so, at the time; even though I had actually mentioned it on
:the phorum I was writing on that it was at least remotelly possible
:that Saddam was telling the truth.
:

He apparently did have at least some (all of older manufacture), as
several hundred rounds of the things have been found since the
invasion.

:
:Iraq was such a utterly strange plase, it´s hard to say what is
:likelly and/or not likelly.
:

I'm rather partial to the explanation put forward by Paul Adam. Saddam
was acting as if he still had such weapons and such programs in order
to keep his neighbors from finding out he didn't. It's really the
only thing that makes sense, if you assume that Saddam himself knew
what was going on, since convincing US that he did was a sure path to
invasion.


--
"May God have mercy upon my enemies; they will need it."
-- General George S Patton, Jr.