Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #727
« Last post by bachfiend on Today at 07:44:58 PM »

You have a psychological disorder to disagree with me even when I’m right. 

Thanks for your diagnoses. I will give it all the consideration that it is due.

Quote
I think your problem is that I don’t completely agree with your main ideological obsession, only partially.  I don’t completely reject your ideological obsession, which is a nuance you’re incapable of accepting.

You can think whatever you want. In this case, you're wrong. Very few here agree with me about the science of diet and nutrition. Many reject the alternative hypothesis in its entirety.

I don't believe I respond to you any differently than anyone else, meaning if you make a claim, statement or give advice that I disagree with, I'll respond. I do that with you and anyone else.

Quote
The forums are a little bit more interesting.  Astronomy, or rather the history of astronomy, is one of my interests.  In the discussion of planets, I noted that one way of distinguishing planets from stars is that stars can ‘twinkle,’ but that planets rarely do (although they can do if the atmosphere is very turbulent.  And that if the stars are scintillating through a pair of binoculars, there’s little point in getting out your telescope (if you have one), because it won’t be worth it.

And you promptly disagreed, claiming that the view through a telescope is always better than through binoculars, without citing any references.  And I provided my references, including a chapter in Phil Plait’s book ‘Bad Astronomy.’  And you promptly disagreed again, stating, without reading the chapter, that Phil Plait would never tell someone not to look through a telescope when the stars are scintillating.
Hey if Plait, or any professional astronomer says if a star is twinkling or scintillating in binoculars don't bother looking at them through a telescope I'd be surprised.

They wouldn't for a couple reasons. First, telescopes have a wider area (reflector or lens) than binoculars and that increases light collection and reduces scintillation (to a point). Second, many stars are binary stars and what may seem to be one twinkling star in a pair of binoculars may actually be two stars visible in a telescope.

Also, because telescopes used for astronomy generally have better light collecting properties you will see more stars and more faint objects through a telescope than you will through binoculars, and that can include galaxies, clusters and nebula. Even if the better device doesn't remove all twinkling, it will be worth looking.

Quote
In another thread, discussing the retrograde motion of the planets, I noted that currently Mars was currently in opposition, being prominent in the western sky before sunrise.  And you promptly disagreed (again) claiming that I was actually observing the red giant star Antares.  I know what I was observing.  And I confirmed later on my astronomy App.
P
IIRC, I simply asked how you knew that was mars and suggested that Antares is often confused with mars. You didn't like that.

But I didn't disagree are claim anything about what your were observing. I asked a question.

Phil Plait actually discussed in the chapter in his book about scintillation making it impossible to distinguish double-star systems as such.  Why don’t you read the chapter?  He also recounts how he once saw the faintest star he ever saw though a telescope when scintillation of a very very faint star suddenly stopped for an instant, causing the star’s image to suddenly and transiently snap to the point source it is.  Scintillation causes the image of point sources to spread out and become discs, diluting the light received from the star over a slightly larger area, making it fainter and in some cases undetectable, so you’re wrong (again).  Read the chapter.  It’s a very good book.

What makes you think scintillation is less through a telescope?  Reference?

As I’d noted.  I knew it was Mars.  You insisted it was Antares.  I knew it wasn’t Antares.  End of story.

I don’t reject the alternate hypothesis of nutrition.  It’s a hypothesis, not a theory.  A hypothesis doesn’t have sufficient evidence to reject or accept as being possibly true.

And as I’ve noted numerous times, I accept that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet is a perfectly acceptable diet, along with many other possible diets.  But I don’t accept that it’s the ‘best’ diet, because there’s no long term studies showing better health and life expectancy.  You continue to confuse short term with long term.  Two years isn’t long term.

My only dietary advice ever has been to eat sufficient but not excessive calories, adequate amounts of essential amino acids and fatty acids, adequate minerals and vitamins, and not to consume excessive amounts of protein.  If you’re of a healthy body weight and fat percentage, and you’re not gaining weight or body fat, it doesn’t matter whether you get 70% of your calories from fat or carbohydrates, or anywhere in between.
2
Religion / Philosophy Talk / Re: Major Lawsuit against Scientology
« Last post by Desert Fox on Today at 07:20:28 PM »
Jesus, I was looking up Ron Miscavige and found this

https://www.leahreminiaftermath.com/articles/leah-remini-encouraged-wife-beater-racist-ron-miscavige-fellow-profiteer.html#
Quote
One of the biggest shills for Ron Miscavige—admitted wife-beater, racist and anti-Semite—is actress Leah Remini who features him in her cheap reality TV show.

Remini claims she encouraged Ron to tell his false life story in which he covered up his long history of domestic violence against his late wife Loretta, even going so far as to “blame the victim” by claiming that she provoked him.

Ron downplayed his wife-beating by claiming in his literary forgery that he may have shoved his wife or hit her in the arm a few times. Ron got caught in this lie when it was exposed on national TV, where he admitted to Fox’s Megyn Kelly that he punched his first wife. When questioned how many times, Ron admitted, “over a 10-year period—would happen maybe once a month or something like that.” That’s 120 times!

Doesn't even read like a good hit piece
3
Podcasts / Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Last post by xenu on Today at 07:18:12 PM »
Answer to #133

(click to show/hide)
4
General Discussion / Re: Flat Earth How thick?
« Last post by xenu on Today at 07:11:24 PM »
And where is all the lava coming from
5
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #728
« Last post by 2397 on Today at 06:54:17 PM »
Why the hell is everyone calling dogs ‘doggos’ all of a sudden and can they please just stop now?
Language evolves. Even terms for doge.

Used to be called bit.

In Norwegian, all dogs are bitches (bikkjer).
6
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #727
« Last post by CarbShark on Today at 06:53:16 PM »

You have a psychological disorder to disagree with me even when I’m right. 

Thanks for your diagnoses. I will give it all the consideration that it is due.

Quote
I think your problem is that I don’t completely agree with your main ideological obsession, only partially.  I don’t completely reject your ideological obsession, which is a nuance you’re incapable of accepting.

You can think whatever you want. In this case, you're wrong. Very few here agree with me about the science of diet and nutrition. Many reject the alternative hypothesis in its entirety.

I don't believe I respond to you any differently than anyone else, meaning if you make a claim, statement or give advice that I disagree with, I'll respond. I do that with you and anyone else.

Quote
The forums are a little bit more interesting.  Astronomy, or rather the history of astronomy, is one of my interests.  In the discussion of planets, I noted that one way of distinguishing planets from stars is that stars can ‘twinkle,’ but that planets rarely do (although they can do if the atmosphere is very turbulent.  And that if the stars are scintillating through a pair of binoculars, there’s little point in getting out your telescope (if you have one), because it won’t be worth it.

And you promptly disagreed, claiming that the view through a telescope is always better than through binoculars, without citing any references.  And I provided my references, including a chapter in Phil Plait’s book ‘Bad Astronomy.’  And you promptly disagreed again, stating, without reading the chapter, that Phil Plait would never tell someone not to look through a telescope when the stars are scintillating.
Hey if Plait, or any professional astronomer says if a star is twinkling or scintillating in binoculars don't bother looking at them through a telescope I'd be surprised.

They wouldn't for a couple reasons. First, telescopes have a wider area (reflector or lens) than binoculars and that increases light collection and reduces scintillation (to a point). Second, many stars are binary stars and what may seem to be one twinkling star in a pair of binoculars may actually be two stars visible in a telescope.

Also, because telescopes used for astronomy generally have better light collecting properties you will see more stars and more faint objects through a telescope than you will through binoculars, and that can include galaxies, clusters and nebula. Even if the better device doesn't remove all twinkling, it will be worth looking.

Quote
In another thread, discussing the retrograde motion of the planets, I noted that currently Mars was currently in opposition, being prominent in the western sky before sunrise.  And you promptly disagreed (again) claiming that I was actually observing the red giant star Antares.  I know what I was observing.  And I confirmed later on my astronomy App.

IIRC, I simply asked how you knew that was mars and suggested that Antares is often confused with mars. You didn't like that.

But I didn't disagree are claim anything about what your were observing. I asked a question.
7
So how about the prevalent American religion these days, The American Dream (not exclusively American, but that is the best way to describe it - ideological capitalism I suppose). 

The phony ideal of bootstrapping one's self from the gutter to the penthouse with no help from anyone, just good ol' fashioned elbow grease and a heapin' helpin' of gumption.  That religion does a pretty good job of enforcing the status quo, maintaining (and increasing) the hold that the rich have over the poor. 

I consider it a religion because it relies on its adherents zealously believing demonstrably untrue things (such as trickle-down economics), and consistently acting against their own self-interest.
8
Maybe Steve hired him as a preemptive action so that the sleazeball suing him would not get him. You don't want someone that unethical working for the other side.

 :) This is definitely applying the idea of maximal generosity. Or perhaps the idea was to stand next to the biggest possible sleaze ball, so that you look like a saint by comparison. Not that Steve and the rogues need that-- they are already saints in my book (though I'm sure they would reject the supernatural connotations).

The interview on the SGU and the NECSS slot are a little harder to be generous about :(
9
General Discussion / Re: Grammar Questions and Observations
« Last post by The Latinist on Today at 06:38:48 PM »
Among my numerous abuses I tend to screw up She and I and She and me but its almost always by using I where I should use me.

If it could be replaced with “we”, it’s ‘she and I’; otherwise it’s ‘her and me’.  It is never ‘she and me.’

Or you could just use we/us.
10
Religion / Philosophy Talk / Re: Major Lawsuit against Scientology
« Last post by Desert Fox on Today at 06:34:15 PM »
I wondered online if Shelly Miscavige is dead.

There was a missing person case that was quickly closed.
It is suppose to be that it was quickly closed when a police officer did a welfare check.

I responded that only one or two officers (or higher ups) have to be involved in order to close the case.

I was called conspiratorial.

Problem is that I have an interest in wrongful convictions and I have learned that one should not take police reports at face value.
I don't see any grand conspiracy to bend an ear or two. 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
personate-rain