Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: :colbert:

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - borealis

1
The Soap Opera / Re: Amnesty for Bart Roberts?
What is Bart offering in return?

Damnit! We should have asked for cash, right?

I never think these things through.
2
The Soap Opera / Re: Amnesty for Bart Roberts?
is this a thing, what with his posting on his other account(s) ?

He asked if he could post as bart again a few days ago.
3
The Soap Opera / Re: Amnesty for Bart Roberts?
What was he banned for?

Harassing people, mostly, iirc. May have been some doxxing of members. Honestly will have to do a laborious zombie TR search to find out. There may have been more behaviour problems I've forgotten.

I am neutral on this issue, btw.
4
The Soap Opera / Amnesty for Bart Roberts?
Bart's been asking. Meep and I figured we'd ask the membership.


It's been a long time.
5
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse

Quote
"I propose that instead of taxing the import of American serviettes, we tax Trump," Gilmore said. "In the spirit of the Magnitsky Act, Canada and the western allies come together to collectively pressure the only pain point that matters to this President: his family and their assets."

Specifically, Gillmore suggested the use of Canada's Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the Magnitsky Act. The law was designed to punish foreign officials engaged in corruption by allowing the Canadian government to crack down on their businesses.


http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-france-trump-organization-tariffs-trade-response-2018-6?utm_source=reddit.com
6
Dave, you are phenomenally brainwashed, and your treehouse is pushing a whole lot of insidious and ugly propaganda down your willing gullet.

Look at the language being used -
Quote
Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland snarkily announced her "sisterhood in trade" with EU Trade Minister Cecilia Malström, and how together they formed a strategy and were going to block President Trump.  They were very pleased with themselves (please watch).

"Snarkily"? Trump proposed backward and injurious trade actions which will dramatically affect the economy of Canada and other US allies. He lies constantly about real trade numbers, and lies about the reasons Canada has for using supply management on dairy while never mentioning the 72% subsidization of over-producing American dairy farms. Just for starters.

Freeland was SINCERE. Describing what she said as 'snarky' is language designed to make you feel like Canada and the EU are out to get you, insincere, sneaky (a word Trump has used repeatedly about Canadians).

It's frankly disgusting and is hurting international relationships with allies. You think Canada will not form new trade relationships? Because we already are, and those new trade venues will not be available again to an untrustworthy southern neighbour. You think the US will suddenly not need the things they currently buy from Canada? Nope. Those things will just cost Americans more, slow the American economy, and lose American jobs.

And that's not the half of it. No point going on since you are as ignorant as Trump about the issues involved.

He is intent on harming American allies and killing jobs in the US, because he is, frankly, ignorant about big piture reality.

Could any of this suggest Drumpf is a Russian agent?

Ask Mueller.

But there's that saying - don't assign to malice what is due to incompetence.

Certainly the Russians have been meddling in a grand manner, and no doubt with an eye to stirring up enough shit to weaken the West, but Trump appears to me to be mostly driven by vanity, paranoia, his bullying nature, and frank ignorance of what his job entails.

I think it's close to falling apart, even if Muelle rhas no reason to pursue Trump himself, Trump's own words and actions are leading him to an inevitable crash. The current state of affairs is unsustainable, and afraid as they are of the backlash, I strongly suspect the GOP is close to reaching the limit of what they can handle if they ever want to form a government again.

Canada is a lot smaller, but as an example: I watched the complete destruction of one of the two most powerful and oldest parties in the country, Canada's Progressive Conservatives. They dwindled to two seats at the end, and were then eaten by a very young Western rightwing party. It happened very fast, albeit with a few internal stabs in the back. The resulting Conservative Party of Canada is nothing like the old PCs.


I could easily see something similar happening to the Republicans. They are shuffling up to the edge of a cliff, and Trump, triumphantly oblivious, intends to lead them merrily over it,
8
Damn I miss vbullettin's comments feature.
9
Home cooking or take-out for the GOP!

This time it's Sarah Huckabee Sanders' turn to get back in the kitchen:

https://splinternews.com/virginia-restaurant-86es-sarah-huckabee-sanders-and-her-1827074536
10
Oh - about Trump's stupid 'scuffed shoes' remarks. There is no tariff on American made shoes in Canada.
There's is the tiniest smidgen of truth in it.  In the particular incident the shoes were Italian. Explaining Trump's Claim About Canadians  Smuggling Shoes Because of 'Massive' Tariffs.

It's a very tiny smidgen, and requires people buying items not made in North America. And the 'scuffing them up' remark is just stupid, especially in relation to expensive designer shoes.

Also, European made shoes will soon be tariff free in Canada, probably cheaper than buying in the US at that point.
11
@Zombies!

The truth really is that certain species of locust were and still are a favoured food source in Yemen and other countries in the region. The swarming locusts present an opportunity to collect and preserve a lot of high protein food easily and at once. They are often roasted, then brined, then dried for future consumption and are said to have a mild, nutty flavour. Lots of rabbis in the last couple centuries have pondered on the religious validity of permitting them to be eaten, with some agreeing they can be eaten as 'clean' food while others disagree and think they should not be considered 'clean' food. This usually comes down to where these rabbis live and whether it is a local tradition to enjoy them or not. So - lots of localised pragmatism.
12
Actually, Vox, I had a spelling brainfart.  :staregonk:
13
Dave, what do you mean re 'not having seen sandstone beaches'?

Because exposed sandstone beaches are pretty common, and so are coastal sandstone cliffs.

Were you expecting sand to turn to stone in a couple years or what?
14
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

He wouldn't need to look for a gap if he didn't cling to one of the most unreasonable Christianish denominations on the planet. He's fine with grasshoppers having six legs, not four, as are all of them (aside from the really twisted interpretations of what 'four' means in context) Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I WTFed untill I googled:
http://www.icr.org/article/does-bible-really-claim-that-insects-only-have-fou/
Quote
Today, locusts are considered migratory grasshoppers. They all have two large hind legs, quite different in appearance, size, and function from the front four legs. Their front legs are used for "crawling, clinging, and climbing," while their back legs rest "above" their front legs and feet, and are used for "jumping." Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated "beetle" actually comes from the verb "to leap," implying a similar leaping insect, not our modern beetle. Thus, the Biblical description of grasshoppers turns out to be exactly anatomically correct. Far from being an embarrassment to Bible believers, this passage bears sterling testimony to the accuracy and inspiration of Scripture. As always, arguments which claim that the Bible is wrong are themselves wrong, and the Bible still stands!
wut?

Lol. Told you.

Also the bolded line in that ICR bit is entymological ignorance. If the word means 'beetle', then it seems awkward to pretend it means some other insect. There are lots of beetles that jump/leap, including click beetles (Elateridae ) and flea beetles. And there would be no difference between beetles of Biblical eras and 'modern' beetles. The same vast multitude of beetle species exists today, minus a few extinctions.
15
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

He wouldn't need to look for a gap if he didn't cling to one of the most unreasonable Christianish denominations on the planet. He's fine with grasshoppers having six legs, not four, as are all of them (aside from the really twisted interpretations of what 'four' means in context) Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I WTFed untill I googled:
http://www.icr.org/article/does-bible-really-claim-that-insects-only-have-fou/
Quote
Today, locusts are considered migratory grasshoppers. They all have two large hind legs, quite different in appearance, size, and function from the front four legs. Their front legs are used for "crawling, clinging, and climbing," while their back legs rest "above" their front legs and feet, and are used for "jumping." Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated "beetle" actually comes from the verb "to leap," implying a similar leaping insect, not our modern beetle. Thus, the Biblical description of grasshoppers turns out to be exactly anatomically correct. Far from being an embarrassment to Bible believers, this passage bears sterling testimony to the accuracy and inspiration of Scripture. As always, arguments which claim that the Bible is wrong are themselves wrong, and the Bible still stands!
wut?

Lol. Told you.
16
Are you sure they were beaches?  As in beaches we are familiar with?

No you are not sure at all.

You are just guessing.
IOW, "How do you KNOW sand will turn to sandstone? WERE YOU THEEEEERE?"
It's pathetic how transparent he is.
Gotta find a gap for his god.

He wouldn't need to look for a gap if he didn't cling to one of the most unreasonable Christianish denominations on the planet. He's fine with grasshoppers having six legs, not four, as are all of them (aside from the really twisted interpretations of what 'four' means in context) but balks at Genesis being myth and allegory. The majority of Christians don't fight clear evidence of God working in far less mysterious ways than was believed several centuries ago.


If God, Dave, then God gave you a functional brain, and won't award you brownie points for failing to use it.
17
Dave, you are phenomenally brainwashed, and your treehouse is pushing a whole lot of insidious and ugly propaganda down your willing gullet.

Look at the language being used -
Quote
Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland snarkily announced her "sisterhood in trade" with EU Trade Minister Cecilia Malström, and how together they formed a strategy and were going to block President Trump.  They were very pleased with themselves (please watch).

"Snarkily"? Trump proposed backward and injurious trade actions which will dramatically affect the economy of Canada and other US allies. He lies constantly about real trade numbers, and lies about the reasons Canada has for using supply management on dairy while never mentioning the 72% subsidization of over-producing American dairy farms. Just for starters.

Freeland was SINCERE. Describing what she said as 'snarky' is language designed to make you feel like Canada and the EU are out to get you, insincere, sneaky (a word Trump has used repeatedly about Canadians).

It's frankly disgusting and is hurting international relationships with allies. You think Canada will not form new trade relationships? Because we already are, and those new trade venues will not be available again to an untrustworthy southern neighbour. You think the US will suddenly not need the things they currently buy from Canada? Nope. Those things will just cost Americans more, slow the American economy, and lose American jobs.

And that's not the half of it. No point going on since you are as ignorant as Trump about the issues involved.

He is intent on harming American allies and killing jobs in the US, because he is, frankly, ignorant about big piture reality.


Did you read about this episode?  Such a child.

Quote
"Trump was sitting there with his arms crossed, clearly not liking the fact that they were ganging up on him," Bremmer said to the news outlet. "He eventually agreed and said OK, he'll sign it. And at that point, he stood up, put his hand in his pocket, his suit jacket pocket, and he took two Starburst candies out, threw them on the table and said to Merkel, 'Here, Angela. Don't say I never give you anything.' "
393311-ian-bremmer-trump-tossed-candy-to-merkel-during-g-7-said-dont


Yes, I read that. Petty and ignorant and needlessly hostile.
18
Oh - about Trump's stupid 'scuffed shoes' remarks. There is no tariff on American made shoes in Canada. I could drive down to Bangor tomorrow and buy ten pairs of shoes and bring them home without paying anything at the border,except provincial sales tax if it's over 200 per day trip.

He just lies about everything.
19
Dave, you are phenomenally brainwashed, and your treehouse is pushing a whole lot of insidious and ugly propaganda down your willing gullet.

Look at the language being used -
Quote
Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland snarkily announced her "sisterhood in trade" with EU Trade Minister Cecilia Malström, and how together they formed a strategy and were going to block President Trump.  They were very pleased with themselves (please watch).

"Snarkily"? Trump proposed backward and injurious trade actions which will dramatically affect the economy of Canada and other US allies. He lies constantly about real trade numbers, and lies about the reasons Canada has for using supply management on dairy while never mentioning the 72% subsidization of over-producing American dairy farms. Just for starters.

Freeland was SINCERE. Describing what she said as 'snarky' is language designed to make you feel like Canada and the EU are out to get you, insincere, sneaky (a word Trump has used repeatedly about Canadians).

It's frankly disgusting and is hurting international relationships with allies. You think Canada will not form new trade relationships? Because we already are, and those new trade venues will not be available again to an untrustworthy southern neighbour. You think the US will suddenly not need the things they currently buy from Canada? Nope. Those things will just cost Americans more, slow the American economy, and lose American jobs.

And that's not the half of it. No point going on since you are as ignorant as Trump about the issues involved.

He is intent on harming American allies and killing jobs in the US, because he is, frankly, ignorant about big piture reality.

20
Politics and Current Events / Re: Canada legalizes?
Come for the multibillion dollar corporate marijuana growers about to corner the global market and develop cannabis whisky, stay for the stunning pics of massive all white greenhouses.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/06/canada-marijuana-justin-trudeau-jeff-sessions-trump-canopy-pot/
21
1) It's mainly sandstone - sometimes interlayered with mudstone
2) It was laid down by water - mostly during transgressions/regressions
3) There a lot of it in N. America, perhaps covering 3/4 of the land surface - I don't think quite 3/4ths - maps are a bit deceptive and there is a LOT of Canadian shield (8 million sq.km.) and Arctic islands, not to mention the rocky mountains.
4) It is named differently in different parts of N. Am., Potsdam, Lamotte, Mt. Simon, Tapeats, etc. - Those weren't, afaict, necessarily laid down during the same transgressions/regressions.
5) But each of these names refers to "basal Cambrian sandstone" ... the word "basal" defined previously.


I'm wondering if you're able to interpret that black/yellow/white diagram Pingu keeps posting, as it has no labels and you may not understand what it's describing. Ask her, she is better at explaining than I am.


Essentially, you should try to grasp that these inundations and subsidences of water levels happened repeatedly, not just once. Beaches were exposed, covered, exposed again over millions of years. Sometimes that may have happened relatively fast, sometimes very slowly.

I've seen beaches hundreds of years old disappear in one winter season, the sand shifted out by ice in a winter storm, exposing an underlying rock beach. And if you dug down, removing the rock layer, you find another sand beach, very compacted and hard, but still sand. And below that, more layers of rock and sand until you reach bedrock. But that's on a stormy Atlantic shore, not a calm sheltered inland sea.
22
I doubt that jacket even belongs to Melania Trump (the unphotoshopped version). I think it was borrowed, purposely or not. It is a several years old Zara design that cost $39. retail. It's outside her normal range of dress modes and purchases.

(Zara being the company that has sold (and pulled after being called on them) a purse with a print design including flowers and swasticas, a striped baby shirt with a yellow 'sherriff' star appliqued on the chest, and a shirt with a stylized watermelon eating black figure on the front. Zara stores have been accused of paying and promoting black employees less than white ones, of referring to black customers as 'special' as a euphemism for 'follow them around the store', and of using sweatshops to make their clothing, and of stealing multiple designs from multiple small designers.)
23
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Dave, it might not be obvious to you but this based on the layers of rock that are present in the ground.  Not just someone's flight of fancy to support their pet theory like the ICR sandstone map.


QFT.

Dave, your 'investigation' here looks ridiculous. You have no basic geology education, or none that is discernible from your approach to this topic. It appears you've never encountered even elementary school or high school texts on the subject. You don't know what most of the terms even mean. You're skimming material that you don't understand and pulling quotes and figures you think might help you, but don't when examined. When your mistaken conclusions are pointed out, you don't admit fault, you just offer incredulity based on your own misunderstandings.

Your problem is that reality does not match your YEC belief. It never will. Rocks don't lie, but ICR does, repeatedly. YEC, globally, is a fringe belief, precisely because it fails the truth test every time.
24
Anyway.  The continental basement Precambrian rocks are mostly granite.  Granite is quartz, mica and feldspar.  Sand in non-tropical regions is mostly crushed and rounded quartz particles.  Why could the weathering of Precambrian rocks, followed by the movement of this material by water, not have created wide beds of sand?
Great question.  Premature.  Let's finish convincing everyone first that there IS a ...

Continent sized, incredibly thin, super duper flat layer of sandstone covering most of N. America

You seem to be finally convinced.  What about everyone else?

(And when I say "continent sized" yes I realize that not every square inch of the continent is covered)
I didn't say it's continuous.
I see. 

So when you posted that map with all that exposed Pre-Cambrian rock ... did you notice the white (non-shaded) portions of the map?  You are not convinced that the lowest layer of THAT portion - basal sandstone - is continuous over the non-shaded area depicted? 

Just trying to make sure I understand exactly what you mean here.

What - in your opinion - is the nature of these discontinuities?  State lines?  Wooden fences?  Armies of gremlins in columns?  Something else?

Dave, did you look at that map and just assume that everything in white had a lower layer of sandstone?
Yes, he did.  No, It doesn't
No I did not.

But there IS a lot of basal sandstone.

And it covers multiple states in the USA according to the Octohatters who study it.

And the thicknesses that I have seen listed range from 100ft to 2000 ft. Which is incredibly thin if we are talking about a layer which might be thousands of miles in areal extent

So what I'm trying to do is pieced together all this this disparate information into a coherent map of some sort.

You've been shown coherent maps. They look as one would expect, given a large inland sea with multiple basins. No sandstone occurs on the highlands nor on the enormous shield.


100 to 2000 feet thickness is not 'incredibly thin and flat', and the extent of the deposits is irrelevant to their thickness. You could, as has been pointed out, as easily say that the earth's Ocean is 'incredibly shallow', given its areal extent.


The USA is not the whole planet. It isn't even all of North America. Much of the 'areal extent' of Canada does not have these same sandstone layers. Much of the rest of the world does not, either, though some places have similar geological traces because 500 million years ago sea levels were much higher than they are today.


Many factors influence sea levels, from glaciation to plate tectonics. A 1 year global flood explains nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level
25
Nonsense. The sky is the den of Muin, the she bear. Every spring she wakes and comes down to inhabit a bear body on earth, is hunted and eventually killed, then her life spirit flies back to her den and sleeps all winter, waking up again the next spring.

Muin wouldn't sleep in an old cold skull.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)