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 - Rudd Master 3000

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
1
The Lounge / Re: Midnight
« on: August 03, 2007, 05:34:48 PM »
We can actually agree on something.

2
The Lounge / Re: Midnight
« on: August 03, 2007, 05:25:01 PM »
Keep talking out your ass.

3
The Lounge / Re: Midnight
« on: August 03, 2007, 05:11:27 PM »
Just a question, Obaby: Do you know what the FOIA is? F-f-f-failure.

~D-Draw

The interesting thing about this whole situation is it really brings out the idiots.

Go ahead, file an FOIA request with the DOE and if it's different from what you'd get on the EAI website and supports what midnight stated originally then I'll retract what I said.

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "I'm So Cool Because I Put My Topics In Quotes."
« on: August 03, 2007, 09:29:19 AM »
I'll stop when he gives me one source.

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "I'm So Cool Because I Put My Topics In Quotes."
« on: August 03, 2007, 09:23:09 AM »
Hypocrisy is a warm gun.
LOL

Still waiting for that source.

6
The Lounge / Re: Midnight
« on: August 03, 2007, 09:09:18 AM »
LOL
I marvel at the missing posts between the damning evidence that I am, without a doubt, disagreeable with ignorant people. I also marvel at the length of time this person sat compiling this little dossier on why I am bad. That takes far more energy than I think he realizes. It flatters me, and shows a certain fondness for me. I am touched. And let's not forget cross posting, that will force someone to take the bait, correct?

Laughable.
Oh, and let's always remember, a poll of what 90% of those who respond to it, on here, actually think of me, will cause me unimaginable harm, and lead me to suspect I should leave. Right, and Cheney means well.  :-*

Thanks for the life force and energy, Obiwan, but your mission is a skewered one. In fact, I suspect as you read this, your plans are falling down around your ankles like gym shorts. I won't use that aliteration any more deeply, we wouldn't want to decode anything here just yet.

His thread automatically fits #2. I rest my case, kids.

If you feel anything was missed that was important go ahead and link to it.

This post isn't for you so I don't care what you think about, it's for others that may not realise you're a troll.

I'm still waiting for a single source from you.

7
The Lounge / Midnight
« on: August 03, 2007, 03:50:35 AM »
Here's a nice conversation that may help you make up your mind.

... if we assume that the search for WMDs was a lie, and that there were no other justifications which are not known to the public at this time.

However, I think you're probably right.

There was never a point when Iraq was an imminent threat to the US.  It was not self-defense, however you look at it.

Anything that threatens our oil supply is a direct threat to the economic ability of the U.S.. I don't see how protecting our oil supply is not an act of self-defense. I just wish Bush said that's why we are there.

Unfortunately, you are out of your league again, Narcy baby...

The United States of America receives more imported oil from Canada, Mexico, Russia, and yes, CHINA, than all the arab nations combined, more than one time over. We do not NEED the oil in Iraq, and we certainly have no REASON to (so, again, defending what, from whom?) . Our national reserves are in place to sustain us, as a SUV guzzling nation of idiots, for at least two-hundred years or more. So...no.

This is all data readily available from FOIA, which, like the other thread from the other day, I assume will scare you into muted silence.

You may go now. :-*



I thought that the reserves were reported to only last for the next 20 to 40 years?



Our national reserves are in place to sustain us, as a SUV guzzling nation of idiots, for at least two-hundred years or more.

Under twenty years more like it.



Our national reserves are in place to sustain us, as a SUV guzzling nation of idiots, for at least two-hundred years or more.

Under twenty years more like it.

False.



Our national reserves are in place to sustain us, as a SUV guzzling nation of idiots, for at least two-hundred years or more.

Under twenty years more like it.

False.

You're right - what I said was basically false. I apologise for my mistake - I misread some of the information and it's actually more like 4 years and 70 days... which is still under twenty years so I wasn't entirely wrong (and defnitely closer to twenty than 200 was).

The combined total of proven reserves, reported reserves & stock for the USA is 29,173,390,000 barrels. The USA uses 21,000,000 barrels per day (This is from a weekly report - so I thought it was per week but it's actually per day). To make the proven reserves, reported reserves and stock last 200 years this would have to drop down to 400,000 barrels a day (i.e. 52.5 times less than what is presently being used). To put that in perspective this is essentially saying that anything that uses all can only be used one week out of every year. Based on present usage the proven reserves, reported reserves & stock would be used before the end of 2011. The reason why you can use so much oil is because you import shitloads of it. Take away the imports and you're fucked.



All data was taken from the Energy Adminstration Information website.



Our national reserves are in place to sustain us, as a SUV guzzling nation of idiots, for at least two-hundred years or more.

Under twenty years more like it.

False.

You're right - what I said was basically false. I apologise for my mistake - I misread some of the information and it's actually more like 4 years and 70 days... which is still under twenty years so I wasn't entirely wrong (and defnitely closer to twenty than 200 was).

The combined total of proven reserves, reported reserves & stock for the USA is 29,173,390,000 barrels. The USA uses 21,000,000 barrels per day (This is from a weekly report - so I thought it was per week but it's actually per day). To make the proven reserves, reported reserves and stock last 200 years this would have to drop down to 400,000 barrels a day (i.e. 52.5 times less than what is presently being used). To put that in perspective this is essentially saying that anything that uses all can only be used one week out of every year. Based on present usage the proven reserves, reported reserves & stock would be used before the end of 2011. The reason why you can use so much oil is because you import shitloads of it. Take away the imports and you're fucked.



All data was taken from the Energy Adminstration Information website.

Again false. That link is run by the same people who lie about it. Fail.



Again false. That link is run by the same people who lie about it. Fail.

Ah, I see. The USA must have oil reservse to last 200 years because you said so - if there's other information provided that contradicts this it must be a lie.

 ::)



Mids, what source do you have for your '200 years' claim? How do you know that source doesn't also lie?



I am tired of repeating myself. FOIA.

Then instead of just repeating the same stupid things how about trying something intelligent. You could at least try expanding on what you have said previously.

Not to mention, I live in Texas. Visit the oil fields here. They have charts and graphs and actual documentation on the state of each and every field. Know what? That is only in TEXAS.

Wow, the EIA has data for the entire USA - not just for one state.

The end.

Does this mean you're going to stop? I don't know if I can take much more of your stupidity.



Here's the thing, you're confused midnight. You're not talking about oil reserves. Take a deep breathe before you shut you're mind off and start arguing.

You're talking about oil shale. The USA has an estimated 800,000,000,000 barrels of oil that could be extracted from oil shale. Still that's not nearly enough for 200 years and it costs twice as much to produce.



Keep digging your own grave there midnight... you might just strike oil.



I am tired of repeating myself. FOIA.

Then instead of just repeating the same stupid things how about trying something intelligent. You could at least try expanding on what you have said previously.

Not to mention, I live in Texas. Visit the oil fields here. They have charts and graphs and actual documentation on the state of each and every field. Know what? That is only in TEXAS.

Wow, the EIA has data for the entire USA - not just for one state.

The end.

Does this mean you're going to stop? I don't know if I can take much more of your stupidity.



Here's the thing, you're confused midnight. You're not talking about oil reserves. Take a deep breathe before you shut you're mind off and start arguing.

You're talking about oil shale. The USA has an estimated 800,000,000,000 barrels of oil that could be extracted from oil shale. Still that's not nearly enough for 200 years and it costs twice as much to produce.



Keep digging your own grave there midnight... you might just strike oil.

Janes.com, another good source of information for the dipshit parade to follow. The difference between blanket statements spoken by some of you, and the lack of fleshed out data I present, is a simple one:

You can follow the links, and research it, and read it. I refuse to hold your hands. Anyone can make an insult, and use that to justify whatever delusion they wish. I have nothing to prove to you people. You will either look it up for yourselves, or pot shot. It isn't my problem.

Either look it up, or keep telling yourself you are intelligent.  :-*



I have nothing to prove to you people.

Sure you do - the statement that the USA has enough oil reserves for 200 years.

You will either look it up for yourselves, or pot shot. It isn't my problem.

Either look it up, or keep telling yourself you are intelligent.  :-*

Already looked it up, suggest you do the same.



I await your dissertation on my fail.

And, because I truly am a nice person, I will educate you on your response before this latest thrilling installment.

-> Your comment about mine, about Texas? read my post again, a little slower. You missed the meaning behind my statement. *hug n kiss*



I await your dissertation on my fail.

And, because I truly am a nice person, I will educate you on your response before this latest thrilling installment.

-> Your comment about mine, about Texas? read my post again, a little slower. You missed the meaning behind my statement. *hug n kiss*

Did I read it wrong? Sorry, I read it as "texas is the only state that has such extensive data on its oil fields" - I was trying to point out that the EIA doesn't go through the states to get its data but goes directly to the source and has more data for the entire oil reserves of the USA than texas has for the entire reserves of the USA. If I have misread what you wrote please try to be less ambiguous in the future.

C'mon and educate me - it's what I've been waiting for. So far you've shown me nothing but your arrogance and stupidity. If you can provide me with other information that is contrary to what I have provided I will gladly clam up.

In the meantime I don't have anything to add - I've demonstrated my point. Until you come up with something substantial I'm not going to bother replying.



Did I read it wrong? Sorry, I read it as "texas is the only state that has such extensive data on its oil fields" - I was trying to point out that the EIA doesn't go through the states to get its data but goes directly to the source and has more data for the entire oil reserves of the USA than texas has for the entire reserves of the USA. If I have misread what you wrote please try to be less ambiguous in the future.

Ambiguous. I like that. LMFAO.

My meaning was this, of the '200 some-odd years' worth of stashed dead animals we have to power our excess, a sizeable portion OF that, is located here, in my state. It's not some clandestine secret, labrynthine X-Files-scope fucking black Ops. It's called fucking reality.

Do your research, or assume. I honestly can't be bothered with you further on this.

C'mon and educate me - it's what I've been waiting for. So far you've shown me nothing but your arrogance and stupidity. If you can provide me with other information that is contrary to what I have provided I will gladly clam up.

I highly doubt you capable of that one.

In the meantime I don't have anything to add - I've demonstrated my point. Until you come up with something substantial I'm not going to bother replying.

No, you've demonstrated an opinion. Not the same thing as a point, but I digress.

It was interesting at first, now it's just another Narcberry argument session. Come in, say something adamant based on personal opinion rather than researched fact, wait two or three days after it is disemboweled, then nitpick as a self defense mechanism with blanket statements of stupidity, and IEA (never said that term, you did, oh wait) and then crawl back into the hallway with the self-righteous indignation of "my comment alters physical reality".

Sorry, you stating someone is wrong simply because they are wrong, again, by using references no one brought into the conversation but yourself, will not alter physical reality.

Good luck with that technique.  :-*



I know it's not clandestine. I know the informations readily avialable. I've been reading the information of a reliable source... which for some reason you thought was lying about the information - who's into the clandestine shit now?

Did you even bother checking out the EIA website or did you just disregard it because it demonstrated that you were talking out of your ass?

C'mon and educate me - it's what I've been waiting for. So far you've shown me nothing but your arrogance and stupidity. If you can provide me with other information that is contrary to what I have provided I will gladly clam up.

I highly doubt you capable of that one.

If you were capable of providing me with other information I would easily let this go. So, we're back to this...

In the meantime I don't have anything to add - I've demonstrated my point. Until you come up with something substantial I'm not going to bother replying.

My "opinions" are backed by information and research. You just keep on talking out of your ass.

Yet again, feel free to check out the EIA website or explain why it isn't a reliable source - what makes you think they're lying?



Until you come up with something substantial I'm not going to bother replying.

Your refusal to read the source(s) I cited reflects that obvious false statement.

3-0  :-*



still waiting...



still waiting...

No, you've demonstrated an opinion. Not the same thing as a point, but I digress.

It was interesting at first, now it's just another Narcberry argument session. Come in, say something adamant based on personal opinion rather than researched fact, wait two or three days after it is disemboweled, then nitpick as a self defense mechanism with blanket statements of stupidity, and IEA (never said that term, you did, oh wait) and then crawl back into the hallway with the self-righteous indignation of "my comment alters physical reality".

Sorry, you stating someone is wrong simply because they are wrong, again, by using references no one brought into the conversation but yourself, will not alter physical reality.

Good luck with that technique.  :-*

GL.  :-*



Bumped to annoy.



Bumped.

Still waiting.

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "I'm So Cool Because I Put My Topics In Quotes."
« on: August 03, 2007, 03:13:29 AM »
Beats having no concept of sources/reality like yourself Midnight.

9
The Lounge / Re: My New House =D
« on: August 02, 2007, 02:37:59 AM »
Quote from: allhomes.com.au
$750 per week
I guess your weeks are longer than ours.

Don't know if you're aware of this but that's $750 per week for the whole house.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 01, 2007, 10:15:53 AM »
No, but you did start it and that's what I meant by a narc thread.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 01, 2007, 10:03:41 AM »
Well it is a narc thread.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 01, 2007, 09:48:56 AM »
Damn! Here I've been praying that people lose their religious convictions.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 01, 2007, 09:35:19 AM »
Not personally, but I have observed it ruin lives. In almost the same way that drugs do.

So now you're against medication too?

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 01, 2007, 09:33:04 AM »
It is not good, it is bad.

Why is it bad narc? Did it hurt you?

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 01, 2007, 09:27:36 AM »
So it's not good. Well that was my point all along.

Sorry, I thought you were arguing that it was bad.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 01, 2007, 09:19:58 AM »
So it's good because there is nothing good about it?

Nobody's arguing that it's good either.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 01, 2007, 09:11:09 AM »
If people can seriously argue the beauty of fecal matter on a penis, why can't I argue the beauty of children?

Nobody's arguing the beauty of it.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 01, 2007, 09:05:08 AM »
And what is more innocent than sex with a child?

I'd hope that you have a child and he/she gets mollested but that would do more harm to the child than to you.

If you're life's really that mundane that you have to troll forums why don't you just end it?

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 01, 2007, 08:41:39 AM »
Yes, I must be wrong. Sexual deviance is a virtue.

Sexual deviance is sexual deviance and therefore is no more or less virtuous/sinful than any "normal" sex.

The thing that makes most of the other sexually deviant behaviour immoral and wrong is not the actual sex but the fact that there's other harm associated with it. In the case of pedos/beasties/rape this should be obvious and in the case of incest it's more to do with flipper babies.

What's "your" view on masturbation narc?

20
Let me put it another way;  Does the existence of plastic surgery mean that an ugly person is more likely to breed than a non-ugly person?

Yes, I believed so - as has been pointed out though, physical appearance has little to do with reproduction (which I'm surprised at).

As for the infertility, it could become possible in the distant future that enough genes that cause infertility (I don't even know if infertility can be genetic by the way) get passed around that it becomes more and more prevalent and common.

In the end these weren't serious theories that I was proposing, merely idle ponderings. While I think bypassing infertility would possibly create more infertile people in the future (than plastic surgery create ugly people that is) it was still just a bit of fun.

21
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homosexuality is either:
« on: August 01, 2007, 04:38:35 AM »
I thought it was obvious that a penis was for a vagina.

Then get your hand off it narc.

Narc, you know using condoms is wrong because it prevents reproduction?


22
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The not so bright foundation...
« on: August 01, 2007, 04:10:02 AM »
There are countless studies and meta studies into the connection between religion and intelligence.  I presume the one you're talking about is the study published in MENSA, but a quick google search will provide many others, almost all suggesting the same relationship.

Studies indicate that athiests are more intelligent, in general, than religious people.

Most studies do not indicate that atheists are more intelligent, they indicate that more intelligent people are more likely to be atheist.

Here's a basic example of what I mean:

Take 100 people, 5 people with a high IQ and 95 people with an average IQ. Imagine a study is done on these people and it is found that of the 5 intelligent people 4 are atheists and of the 95 others 10 are atheist. So the results are that 80% of intelligent people are athesist whereas only 10.5% of the general public are atheists. From this you could conclude that given a random intelligent person they'd probably be an atheist (80% chance). You could not conclude that given a random atheist that person would probably be intelligent (28.6% chance).

You may not like that example but of the studies I have seen the majority rely on testing intelligent people and comparing it to the general public. I have yet to see one study where atheists are tested on their intelligence (I would speculate that in places like the UK & Australia many atheists would be dissapointed with the results).

In the meantime if anybody has links to studies dealing with religion and intelligence I would be most grateful. I'm after the actual studies - not references to them or summaries of them.

Cheers.

23
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheist Politicians
« on: July 31, 2007, 05:41:46 AM »
That's hilarious - who did the poll?

24
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The not so bright foundation...
« on: July 30, 2007, 03:31:18 AM »
Nicoloin, it'd depend on the context.

Mostly I'd say when used to describe a person it means smart/intelligent/clever etc. in most other cases I'd say it usually means radiant.

25
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheist Politicians
« on: July 30, 2007, 03:23:17 AM »
Why are we getting hung up on Einstein anyways? The point is, most great scientists (nearly every Nobel Physics Prize winner) did not believe in a creator or a life force, and would go under the broad definition of atheism (the word itself is from the Greek 'atheos', with an acute accent over the 'e', which means "[those] without god"). This along with the public percentage which is atheist is in stark contrast with the number of politicians, who are supposed to represent the people, that are atheist (I don't think there is a single atheist senator or representative in the entire United States Congress).

I agree he's not a politician. Forget scientists, this is about atheist politicians.

26
The Lounge / Re: LetterGame_v002
« on: July 28, 2007, 08:14:31 AM »
Hush silly.

E T D

27
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The not so bright foundation...
« on: July 28, 2007, 07:18:52 AM »
Obaby-Wan, I should have mentioned that the world bright was selected for is connotations: enthusiasm and optimism (looking at the sight will make this clear). If you look up bright on m-w.com, there is no mention of intelligence until  definition 5b. However, 1b says "radiant with happiness."

I think the word bright is better than atheist because the latter term seems to assume the existence of the entity it is positing the nonexistence of. Atheism isn't a worldview or a philosophy and it deals with a very narrow area of belief. Humanism hints at belief, but is really more of a way of life or ethical philosophy. The term bright covers everything supernatural (not all atheists are brights) and since "The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview" brights are essentially by default humanists.

Go back to m-w.com and look up "gay" - it's not until the fourth definition that it is used as homosexual, pointing out that "bright" as clever/intelligent isn't until definition 5b is irrelevant. I could point out to you that in the examples given the only defnition of bright that referred to a character trait/disposition of a person was definition 5b (bright person) as opposed to 1b (bright smiling faces). All in all it could be cultural but where I'm from if you talk about a bright person you're talking about an intelligent person and not about somone who's radiant with happiness. If the only connotation wanted is "radiant with happiness" why not be known as the "Cheerfuls" or something else along those lines? Or better yet just call yourself Unsuperstitious or Factual/Evidentual.

Do you honestly think that the people that chose the name weren't aware of the connotations? Were they that dim(4)? By the way, the brackets are so you know which definition I was meaning in m-w.com - I know you'd have trouble working out which one applies to a person without me pointing that out to you.

Face it, there's many other words that you could use to convey the same thing rather than "bright". Stop bullshitting yourself and change the name of the foundation to "Not Stupid" to make it clearer what you mean.

Maybe it is suggesting that Brights are more intelligent, and certainly the scientific evidence backs that up too...

I hope you're not talking about the meta analysis beast. Do you want me to explain to you what conclusions it drew and also why they're different to the conclusions you're drawing? Do you want a copy to read for yourself so that you can start legitimately citing it rather than citing it like a primary source even though you've only heard about it through secondary sources?

Before I cast my vote, would it be too demanding if I ask the topic-opener what 'bright' means to him? ::)

Are you talking about the actual word bright here or the movement?

28
More importantly, if everybody gets uglier who's going to know? It'll become "normal" - if somebody from 1200AD was here they might think we already were uglier.

29
The Lounge / Re: New Novel Concept -- Need Feedback
« on: July 27, 2007, 06:22:21 AM »
The motherly instinct isn't as culturally universal as you might think. While there is an undisputed biological basis for it, in some cultures this is either diminished or suppressed entirely. For example, in certain small societies living in very hot, dry regions, when a baby is born it is left naked to spend its first night outside. If it survives (being 'strong' enough) it is then brought in to be raised, if not, it is unceremoniously buried and life goes on...

Yes and there's many other examples of this - such as Sparta. I have tried to gather more information on the subject but have been unable to. Just because these things are done is not an indication of the actual instict being diminished (let alone supressed entirely). The biological side of it is still there and could cause problems in the system - what could the system use to overcome this? Is it a simple matter of neighbours policing neighbours? Removing the biological element? etc. Basically, what's going to happen to the rogue mum that decides not to hand over her baby? Who is going to forceably remove the baby (e.g. the child minders - there's no police remember)? Will anything happen to the mother (e.g. get sent to the "war")? As I said, I'm merely trying to flesh out this idea.

30
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The not so bright foundation...
« on: July 27, 2007, 05:09:33 AM »
I can certainly agree with that - atheism is a dirty word in Ireland (especially amongst older people). Hence why when I'm over here and people ask me about my "religious" views I usually say I'm a humanist.

I just think the name bright will backfire because of what people can infer from it. More importantly I don't see the point of having an umbrella term - is it that important?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14