Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Give us your bored, your trolls, your huddled aspies yearning to go crazy. TR guarantees they will.

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 - JonF

1
Your efforts haven't done anything to help pig farmers, other than show them how not to do it.
See this is the "glass half empty" attitude that characterizes most of you.  Focus on a mishap I have had instead of focusing on all the successes.  Shitty way to go through life.
Your entire"system" is a mishap.  However, you have had a few successes which have been appropriately acknowledged.
2
Well then she should try not being such a bitch about it ... step 1 would be a huge attitude adjustment ... acknowledging my efforts at fixing the problems which plague traditional small animal husbandry and are frankly THE reason many fail at it and head for the city.
She has not been bitchy and has been incredibly polite and patient until sometimes your asshole behavior and lies push her too far.

She has acknowledged your efforts many times and praised your overall goal as one well worth achieving. She and others have been criticizing[1] the absolutely moronic ways you've chosen to achieve that goal, stemming from your determination to avoid learning anything and caring solely for your convenience rather than considering the needs of your animals.
With plenty of thoughtful discussion and evidence and reasoning, to which you reply "lol".
3
The "fucking idiots" are the people like you who are advocating traditional goat and rabbit husbandry


OK then what the hell ARE you advocating?
No doubt ninja'd but I have to do it:

THE FUCKING PRACTICES WE HAVE BEEN WRITING ABOUT FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND YOU HAVE IGNORED.
4
I'm still waiting for you to grow a pair and respond in the 14C thread.

BTW, Alfonso's comment made perfect sense. He was pointing out your typical cowardice in not acknowledging your lie about Borealis' "one woman crusade.
7
Even most of your own Darwin club members don't say that I am being cruel to my animals.
Everyone says you are being cruel to your animals.  Over and over and over again. With evidence and discussion.

Moran.
8
Anyways Dave,  I'm disappointed in you for not being actually concerned with truth when you go all soapbox about it. There's a reason fundamentalist Christians are so reviled by the rest of us. Your ethics are disturbing. You lie to yourselves and to those around you and want to tell other people what to believe based on only your assertions. Well, your assertions are retarded and your lies in their service would only be funny if they weren't so damaging to humanity.

Fundy Christians. Can't live with 'em, can't feed 'em to the lions anymore.
You're an idiot.  Of course I'm concerned with truth.  And one of the biggest truths around is ... there was a Global Flood.

The radiocarbon calibration curves alone refute the HYPOTHESIS (note, not a "truth") that there was a Global Flood within the last 10,000 years.  They show that there was no Global Flood within at least the last 50,000 years (and actually more).

Which means that the ONLY evidence FOR a Global Flood, i.e. some stories that there was a flood that was global within the last 10,000 years, is shown to be invalid.  There is NO evidence for a GLOBAL Flood AT ALL outside those stories.

Which means you've got nothing left to support your "truth".

Are you going to deal with this?  Or are you frit?
frit?
The mixture of silica and fluxes that is fused at high temperature to make glass.

Obviously.

{Carp, ninja'd}
9
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the problem of landing on the moon had to be solved in people's heads AND DOING THE FUCKING WORK REQUIRED before doing it live, did it not?
FIFY

Your track record of solving things in your head or anywhere else sucks.
10
Dave Hawkins, ladies and gentlemen:the the ultimate reductionist.
11
"describe what in detail?"

Lol

The cheese that the moon is made of.

Which "continent sized sandstone layer" are you hoping to prove the extent of? Time period? Anything?

Or just your second law in action?
The one which is called "Tapeats" in the area of the Grand Canyon.  It's called Tintic Quartzite in central Utah,  in northeastern Utah it is the Lodore Quartzite; in Wyoming and Montana it is the Flathead Sandstone; in Colorado it is the Sawatch Sandstone; in South Dakota it is the Deadwood Quartzite; in the Midwest it is the St. Simon Sandstone; in the Ozarks it is the Lamotte Sandstone; and in northern New York state it is the Potsdam Sandstone.

That one.

Stop playing dumb.


Well that isn't continent sized. As per the evidence you presented earlier in the thread from Sloss, that marine transgression didn't cover the continent.

So what's your next move???

And maybe next time, just answer the question rather than being snarky. Seems the one who's playing dumb is you.
By "continent sized" I mean big. Damn big.  Freaking big. Bigger than anything that any placid shallow sea could possibly deposit.

That would have to be larger than the surface of the Earth.

Nobody is talking about placid shallow seas but you.

So where's your evidence for this freaking big layer? How did that quartzite form?
12
I am happy to explain any science I understand to you but I want to start with the problem that the mere existence of Brown's curve causes your model.
To what?
13
So to be honest, I don't know how you make models and predictions about such a massive cataclysm.  I suppose it can be done, but it's gonna be difficult.
Nope, simpler than pie.

Laws of physics and chemistry, Davie-doodles.

Traces of the past.

In which such a global catastrophe would be so obvious nobody could deny it.

Those traces ain't there.

Unless you want to claim magic, wreaked by a God who's lying to us on an unamaginable scale.
14
"describe what in detail?"
Which "continent sized sandstone layer" are you hoping to prove the extent of? Time period? Anything?

Or just your second law in action?
The one which is called "Tapeats" in the area of the Grand Canyon.  It's called Tintic Quartzite in central Utah,  in northeastern Utah it is the Lodore Quartzite; in Wyoming and Montana it is the Flathead Sandstone; in Colorado it is the Sawatch Sandstone; in South Dakota it is the Deadwood Quartzite; in the Midwest it is the St. Simon Sandstone; in the Ozarks it is the Lamotte Sandstone; and in northern New York state it is the Potsdam Sandstone.

That one.
No u.

Dummy.

First step is to establish that these differently named layers are indeed one sandstone layer. 

Ball's in your court.
15
You said that some time ago. That's when you came up with the secondhand "Ager went all hoopy about it".

Not very convincing You'll have to do much better than that.
17
Seems my post deleted itself.

In embarrassing display, Trump flubs test on how money works

I knew he is an ignorant moron, but I thought he was smarter than this.

Quote
He's one of those rare people who managed to lose money running a casino.

With Trump now in the White House, we're starting to get a better sense of why he had so many difficulties in the business world. As The Daily Beast  noted, the president tried to argue last night that he's already managed to shave off a huge chunk of the national debt.

"The country - we took it over and owed over $20 trillion. As you know the last eight years, they borrowed more than it did in the whole history of our country. So they borrowed more than $10 trillion, right? And yet, we picked up $5.2 trillion just in the stock market," Trump told Sean Hannity. "So you could say, in one sense, we're really increasing values. And maybe in a sense, we're reducing debt. But we're very honored by it."

This wasn't just some verbal gaffe. Yesterday afternoon in Harrisburg, during a speech on taxes, he pushed a related point: "Very proudly, just in the stock market alone, we have increased our economic worth by $5.2 trillion, that's right, since Election Day. $5.2 trillion. Think about that, that's a quarter of the $20 trillion that we owe."

This is gibberish. They're the remarks of someone who doesn't know what the national debt is. Or how the nation's finances work. Or even how money works.
19
In the first discussion board I frequented until they went subscription-based, the Straight Dope, we had a classic interminable thread on why there are 360 degrees in a circle. I've forgotten the whole thing except that there was some pyramid-class woo going on.
20
Pingu ...    First of all you can no longer say that my Bible fantasies are driving my approach, because my approach is based on the work of people like Allan Savory and Mark Shepard who are Old Earthers. 
Tainted by your peculiar view of history and other failings until they wouldn't recognize your system as theirs,
22
Politics and Current Events / Re: Comic relief thread


Yes. Yes, one would.
23
The Babylonian system was an odd one. All the other historical number systems I'm aware of used bases of 20 or less. Has anyone figured out why the Babylonians went for 60?
Don't know.
But I've always had this untested hunch that the 360 degrees / circle and ~ 360 days / year was not a coincidence.
NOW you are talking about something interesting again!
There's actually some serious woo attached to that. You'd gobble it right up.
24
Spoiler (click to show/hide)



I took a class in complex analysis once. The complex plane is a strange place. Summing an infinite series via a path integral... strange.
25
Pingu. Listen.  For once in your life.

I know how to deal with different units of weights and measure. I also know how to deal with different bases.

I'm sure you do, Dave.  What I am trying to explain is the common ground between those things.  The shared conceptual foundation.


So do you.

So does Osman.

The only debate here is about terminology or semantics.  And it's stupid.

What seems pretty stupid is your apparent inability to see that the concept of "base" applies BOTH to our decimal counting system (based on multiples of 10) and to our measuring systems (based on multiples of other numbers, sometimes different numbers at different levels).

You think it's just "semantics" but it's important conceptually.  In a very meaningful sense, time measurements are in base 60, and feet-and-inches in base 12, while yards-feet-and-inches are in bases 12 and 3.  I seem to recall trying to make this point in that old thread.  You are essentially denying that "feet and inches are in base 12" is a meaningful statement.  It is highly meaningful, and importantly different from saying "we express quantities of feet and inches in base 10 notational system".

Computationally, feet-and-inches are in base 12, regardless of the notation used to express the digits.

Denying that it is, is, I would say, "stupid".
Jesus Christ. 

She actually thinks I can't see the conceptual link between "bases" with weights and measures and "bases" with numbering systems.
You obviously can't