Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:38:13 -0700, in a place far, far away, Ian
Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

By the time we read politics
you're way out into the fringe of libertarian policy which more resembles a
cult than a sane political system.

I think the situation is even more serious than that. Rand (and Fred
McCall) always suppot US government policy, past and present to the
hilt.

Another idiotic, and false statement about me. I oppose many US
government policies.

Ian: No response.

I see that you offer no support for your fantasy that I "always
support US government policy."

Rand and Fred are against AI which is lunacy.

I am not "against AI." Another idiotic, and false statement against
me. You think that anyone who isn't as insanely obsessed with the
subject as you are is "against" it.

Oh so you have consulted "His Master's Voice".

Huh? Another loony assertion? I have no idea what you're even
talking about. Whose "Master's Voice"? I certainly have no master.

Why then have you
always called me an idiot whenever I have raised the topic.

It is quite possible to both believe that Ian Parket is an idiot, and
to not be "against AI." There is no incompatibility between those
beliefs, except to the logic-challenged.

This is what I mean. You are constantly changing your ground.

No. I have been quite consistent. My position has never been other
than that a) I do not oppose AI and b) you're an idiot.

Just take a look at what you have written. There is yet another
characteristic you have and that is that you are always changing your
ground. You look :-

Space tourism - No confidence in NASA - No alternative offered. The
hypersonic plane is the only thing that is on the table.

AI

Quite frankly, I can't see how anyone can ever have a proper
discussion with you on anything. They are a lunatic until you decide
they are right. Then you shift your ground again and say they are
delusional.

Quite frankly I don't think anyone would ever want to go to Mars with
you. You are clearly not a team player.

As for supporting US Govt policy and defending the indefensible. You
kept telling us all there was no CBW program until I proved there was
one.

The US supported OBL both in Afghanistan and Kosovo and you keep on
denying it. The record is there in black and white.

On the subject of the BBC could I remind you that it is ITV that
produced the documentary on Latin America. Grisly isn't it your
record. Here is an Internet reference?

http://www.geocities.com/ciameddling/

This one was the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4535661.stm

Now lets get to the basic point. Is the US doing all it can to ensure
survival in next (critical) 200 years? Is it heck?


- Ian Parker

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:35:13 -0700, in a place far, far away, Ian
Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Just take a look at what you have written.

Are you talking to somebody? If so, who? Or is it just the voices in
your head again?

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:21:16 -0700, in a place far, far away, Einar
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:


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

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.


There is a certain right wing sourced dislike of the BBC. In one
instance it has to do with the fact it´s a pubilic organization, in
other words owned by the state. Basigly, a number of people think it´s
wrong for the state to be running it in the first plase. It should be
sold and hence made private.

Then there is a second line of dislike, which argues that the BBC has
a bias in its news, an athledged to the left of the center. The
article previously references belonged to the second line of thought.

As far as I can see, the article was a poorly argued one, and as I
thought it the paper it was published in belonged to Rober Murdoch I
pointed out the well known Robert Murdoch´s dislike of the BBC as an
explanation for it being neve-the-less published despite being so
poor.

As far as I can see, that article simply wasn´t reasonable, and I was
attempting to shed light on why it was so partisan against the BBC.
But apparently that was a failure, as the paper in question does not
belong to Robert Murdoch.

Even if it did belong to Rupert Murdoch, your argument is fallacious.
It's not sufficient to simply state your opinion that it was "poorly
argued," or "wasn't reasonable." Are you claiming that it was false?
If so, on what basis? Provide some substantive argument against it,
quoting from the article. Until you can do so, it's hard to take your
"argument" (or indeed much of what you write) seriously.

And saying that "right wingers don't like the BBC" is not an argument.

A statement of fact.

I have already made such specific examples from that article. Take a
second look at my posts in this thread.

Einar

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:07:17 -0700, in a place far, far away, Einar
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:21:16 -0700, in a place far, far away, Einar
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:


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

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.


There is a certain right wing sourced dislike of the BBC. In one
instance it has to do with the fact it´s a pubilic organization, in
other words owned by the state. Basigly, a number of people think it´s
wrong for the state to be running it in the first plase. It should be
sold and hence made private.

Then there is a second line of dislike, which argues that the BBC has
a bias in its news, an athledged to the left of the center. The
article previously references belonged to the second line of thought.

As far as I can see, the article was a poorly argued one, and as I
thought it the paper it was published in belonged to Rober Murdoch I
pointed out the well known Robert Murdoch´s dislike of the BBC as an
explanation for it being neve-the-less published despite being so
poor.

As far as I can see, that article simply wasn´t reasonable, and I was
attempting to shed light on why it was so partisan against the BBC.
But apparently that was a failure, as the paper in question does not
belong to Robert Murdoch.

Even if it did belong to Rupert Murdoch, your argument is fallacious.
It's not sufficient to simply state your opinion that it was "poorly
argued," or "wasn't reasonable." Are you claiming that it was false?
If so, on what basis? Provide some substantive argument against it,
quoting from the article. Until you can do so, it's hard to take your
"argument" (or indeed much of what you write) seriously.

And saying that "right wingers don't like the BBC" is not an argument.

A statement of fact.

But not a statement of fact bearing on the argument, even if it is a
"statement of fact." And they may have good reason to do so (i.e.,
BBC is irrationally biased against America, Israel, and "right
wingers").

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "argument," as
well as that of the more specific "ad hominem argument."

(Hint: the argument clinic of Monty Python provides a good
definition.)

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:07:17 -0700, in a place far, far away, Einar
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:


As far as I can see, that article simply wasn´t reasonable, and I was
attempting to shed light on why it was so partisan against the BBC.
But apparently that was a failure, as the paper in question does not
belong to Robert Murdoch.

Even if it did belong to Rupert Murdoch, your argument is fallacious.
It's not sufficient to simply state your opinion that it was "poorly
argued," or "wasn't reasonable." Are you claiming that it was false?
If so, on what basis? Provide some substantive argument against it,
quoting from the article. Until you can do so, it's hard to take your
"argument" (or indeed much of what you write) seriously.

And saying that "right wingers don't like the BBC" is not an argument.

A statement of fact.

I have already made such specific examples from that article. Take a
second look at my posts in this thread.

I never saw any. Repeat them if you want me to look at them
(cut'n'paste is pretty easy, if you're for real). I'm not going to
dig through many past posts to find what you think you're talking
about.

"Dave O'Neill" wrote:

:
:"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.
:

No, it doesn't. That is only one subspecies of the logical fallacy
know to everyone but you as 'ad hominem'; that being ad hominem
(abusive).

:
:Reporting that X is on
:the record as not liking Y is not attacking X it is reporting a fact about
:X.
:

But if that fact is not relevant to the issue, as in this case, it is
still an ad hominem argument.

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

Not at all. Congratulations on demonstrating that not only do you not
know what 'ad hominem' means, but you also are apparently unable to
read plain declarative sentences in what I assume is your native
tongue.

:
: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.
:

Those MAY just be reporting the simple and obvious conclusion, as in
your case.

:
: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.
:

You should avoid using words that you do not understand. The phrase
'ad hominem' is demonstrably on that list...


--
"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

"Dave O'Neill" wrote:

:
:"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?
:

Yes, I do. It needn't be dramas. You know that, don't you?


--
"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

"Dave O'Neill" wrote:

:
:Most of us start getting nasty to you after being on the recieving end of
:your nasty side.
:

And so say we all (including, I don't doubt, Rand).

Are you starting to catch on yet, Dave?


--
"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

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 21 Aug, 18:15, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:58:43 -0700, in a place far, far away, Ian
: Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:
:
: By the time we read politics
: you're way out into the fringe of libertarian policy which more resembles a
: cult than a sane political system.
:
: I think the situation is even more serious than that. Rand (and Fred
: McCall) always suppot US government policy, past and present to the
: hilt.
:
: Another idiotic, and false statement about me. I oppose many US
: government policies.
:
: Rand and Fred are against AI which is lunacy.
:
: I am not "against AI." Another idiotic, and false statement against
: me. You think that anyone who isn't as insanely obsessed with the
: subject as you are is "against" it.
:
:Oh so you have consulted "His Master's Voice". Why then have you
:always called me an idiot whenever I have raised the topic.
:

Because you are stupidly uninformed about it and say silly and idiotic
things.

:
:This is what I mean. You are constantly changing your ground.
:

No change of ground at all. It's just that, as usual, you cannot
read. Then after you misread things you make stupid inferences and
act as if they are fact.


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