Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #581420 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-29 06:27 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-03 11:02 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 135 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 06:27 -0700
BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 06:43 -0700
BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 06:54 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-29 12:58 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:15 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 07:18 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 10:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 07:51 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:13 -0400
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 10:54 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 08:14 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:18 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 08:19 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:20 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 11:38 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 14:38 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 13:49 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 00:24 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:36 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 13:01 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 10:43 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:27 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 11:48 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 15:10 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 12:37 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 14:50 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 17:32 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 01:12 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 03:45 -0700
Re: BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 05:43 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 11:06 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 00:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 00:27 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 03:34 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 12:54 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 14:48 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 00:43 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:36 -0500
Re: BJ Believes ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-29 14:25 -0500
Re: BJ Believes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-29 13:50 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-29 12:48 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 11:34 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 20:41 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 18:03 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 22:12 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 10:28 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 12:03 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 11:34 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 18:48 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:01 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 20:09 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:17 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 00:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 05:02 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 09:47 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:08 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 06:56 -0500
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 15:15 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 19:41 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 21:38 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 03:13 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:21 -0500
Re: BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 05:50 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:00 -0500
Re: BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 06:51 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:53 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:20 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:24 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:54 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:41 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:21 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:48 -0500
Re: BJ Believes Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:01 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:32 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:58 -0500
Re: BJ Believes Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 15:02 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 23:53 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 06:08 -0700
Re: BJ Believes ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 13:50 -0500
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 14:26 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:44 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:18 -0400
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 09:57 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:07 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:23 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:35 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:55 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:19 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:41 -0500
Re: BJ Believes ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 13:42 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 09:51 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:00 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:27 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:26 -0500
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 13:59 -0500
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 13:40 -0700
Re: BJ Believes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 21:11 +0000
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 17:38 -0400
Re: BJ Believes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 22:50 +0000
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 20:34 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-06-08 19:21 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-09 02:43 -0400
Re: BJ Believes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-09 02:34 +0000
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-09 02:48 -0400
Re: BJ Believes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-09 16:34 +0000
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 17:27 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 21:16 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-09 03:38 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 01:56 -0700
Re: BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 06:38 -0700
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 07:23 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 10:49 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 09:13 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 17:07 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 16:16 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 17:41 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 14:53 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 20:28 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-06-08 19:21 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-09 02:41 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:30 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 20:10 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 22:14 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 10:28 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 12:05 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 11:36 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 04:13 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 12:00 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 09:38 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 18:49 -0400
Re: BenJacoby would have everyone believe in Santa Claus. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 12:11 -0400
Re: Jesus Christ and Santa Claus were invented for people like you. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 19:07 -0400
Re: Correlation doesn’t imply causation. ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 11:02 -0500
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 14:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nisllq$1dnc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582680 |
On 6/3/2016 1:50 PM, ClutterFreak wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:48:40 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Bullshit. You have this fucked up idea that "science discussion" entails >> the polite entertaining of all ideas. That may be your fondest desire, >> but it's not reality. > > This is a scholar's "fucked up" misconception about > who scientists are :) Mebbe. As for me, I do go to what scientists write about who scientists are and what they do. I figure they know the most about it. I gather that you think that going to scientists to determine what scientists are is being a "scholar" and not a "scientist". I gather that you feel more free to declare what a scientist is, independent of what scientists say they are. Perhaps you'll understand my skepticism about that stance. > -- > "harke nAmokht az gozashteh ruzgAr > niz nAmuzad ze hich AmuzgAr" > > - Rudaki > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 07:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <92918b97-d2ac-47b4-a5a8-9c8261bdc680@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582576 |
BJ quacked > On 6/3/2016 8:51 AM, john wrote: >> Odd >> "Such arrogance, that you think humans have control over their biological >> destiny. " >> >> Naysayers, away with you >> Glad to see how all the "science" fans here are such big proponents of censorship. Heresy really needs to be stamped out and controlled. Otherwise ordinary people might be "radicalized" into discussing "ancient aliens". ------------ That's no way to talk to your fellow traveler, John. And personally I truly want to hear you speak on why you believe in ancient aliens. I will fight anyone in this group who tries to stop you! So have at it bro. I got your back
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 14:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5751ca09$0$43806$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #582584 |
On 06/03/2016 10:44 AM, HVAC wrote: > BJ quacked >> On 6/3/2016 8:51 AM, john wrote: >>> Odd >>> "Such arrogance, that you think humans have control over their biological >>> destiny. " >>> >>> Naysayers, away with you >>> > Glad to see how all the "science" fans here are such big proponents of > censorship. Heresy really needs to be stamped out and controlled. > Otherwise ordinary people might be "radicalized" into discussing > "ancient aliens". > ------------ > > That's no way to talk to your fellow traveler, John. > > And personally I truly want to hear you speak on why you believe in ancient aliens. I will fight anyone in this group who tries to stop you! > > So have at it bro. I got your back > Why do you find it necessary to lie about what I believe?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 09:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57518cc2$0$17392$b1db1813$7968482@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #582540 |
On 06/03/2016 09:00 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/3/2016 7:50 AM, john wrote: >> Odd in a nutshell: >> "Ever consider that we may be a short-lived species that rose quickly and >> will burn out quickly, a model for biological disaster? " >> >> Odd, with you on the team, the >> opposition can rest three players >> > > You act like this is under our control, John. > The mass extinctions that have several times in past history -- were any > of those avertable by any of the species living on the planet at the > time? Now, compound that with the fact that we humans may be now kicking > off a mass extinction ourselves.... > > Such arrogance, that you think humans have control over their biological > destiny. Odd, don't you know that the ancient aliens watching over human development will not allow us to extinct ourselves. Ask HVAC. He believes in this. When people get senile they turn into children again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 09:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nis2v1$ea6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582567 |
On 6/3/2016 8:57 AM, benj wrote: > On 06/03/2016 09:00 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/3/2016 7:50 AM, john wrote: >>> Odd in a nutshell: >>> "Ever consider that we may be a short-lived species that rose quickly >>> and >>> will burn out quickly, a model for biological disaster? " >>> >>> Odd, with you on the team, the >>> opposition can rest three players >>> >> >> You act like this is under our control, John. >> The mass extinctions that have several times in past history -- were any >> of those avertable by any of the species living on the planet at the >> time? Now, compound that with the fact that we humans may be now kicking >> off a mass extinction ourselves.... >> >> Such arrogance, that you think humans have control over their biological >> destiny. > > Odd, don't you know that the ancient aliens watching over human > development will not allow us to extinct ourselves. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if John Sefton firmly believes this is true. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if John believes the human race is somehow "special" and is being shepherded for greater things by extra-human influences. That is a common response (the Prayer for a Savior) to those who are terrified of the present. > Ask HVAC. He > believes in this. When people get senile they turn into children again. > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 07:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2651746b-52bb-4681-a979-96902880433d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582571 |
Odd Bodkin > > Odd, don't you know that the ancient aliens watching over human > development will not allow us to extinct ourselves. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if John Sefton firmly believes this is true. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if John believes the human race is somehow "special" and is being shepherded for greater things by extra-human influences. That is a common response (the Prayer for a Savior) to those who are terrified of the present. ------------ There are many here who believe a variation of that idea. BJ, John, Maple loops, AA... And a few other kooks who are too irrelevant to mention. As far as I know the only one who is totally ashamed of his own kooky beliefs is BJ. John is just a happy go lucky stoner and Maple lips is just some fat Indian kook. (No offense guys)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 10:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57519811$0$7288$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #582578 |
On 06/03/2016 10:23 AM, HVAC wrote: > Odd Bodkin >> >> Odd, don't you know that the ancient aliens watching over human >> development will not allow us to extinct ourselves. > > I wouldn't be a bit surprised if John Sefton firmly believes this is > true. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if John believes the human race is > somehow "special" and is being shepherded for greater things by > extra-human influences. That is a common response (the Prayer for a > Savior) to those who are terrified of the present. > ------------ > > There are many here who believe a variation of that idea. BJ, John, Maple loops, AA... And a few other kooks who are too irrelevant to mention. > > As far as I know the only one who is totally ashamed of his own kooky beliefs is BJ. John is just a happy go lucky stoner and Maple lips is just some fat Indian kook. (No offense guys) > Blowhard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 10:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <575195bc$0$46786$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #582571 |
On 06/03/2016 10:07 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/3/2016 8:57 AM, benj wrote: >> On 06/03/2016 09:00 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 6/3/2016 7:50 AM, john wrote: >>>> Odd in a nutshell: >>>> "Ever consider that we may be a short-lived species that rose quickly >>>> and >>>> will burn out quickly, a model for biological disaster? " >>>> >>>> Odd, with you on the team, the >>>> opposition can rest three players >>>> >>> >>> You act like this is under our control, John. >>> The mass extinctions that have several times in past history -- were any >>> of those avertable by any of the species living on the planet at the >>> time? Now, compound that with the fact that we humans may be now kicking >>> off a mass extinction ourselves.... >>> >>> Such arrogance, that you think humans have control over their biological >>> destiny. >> >> Odd, don't you know that the ancient aliens watching over human >> development will not allow us to extinct ourselves. > > I wouldn't be a bit surprised if John Sefton firmly believes this is > true. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if John believes the human race is > somehow "special" and is being shepherded for greater things by > extra-human influences. That is a common response (the Prayer for a > Savior) to those who are terrified of the present. John seems to believe lots of things. But do you believe with HVAC that discussions of the ancient alien theory must be censored and suppressed off all public media like HVAC does? He's done a damn effective job of killing all science discussion on this group. You aren't even a close second. He's a pro. My idea is that if Aliens are here, they were attracted by our nukes and are here not to save US but to save the universe from us doing something exceptionally ignorant and destructive which pisses in THEIR bed. Just look at HVAC and ask yourself if that blowhard could be trusted with even a GUN let alone a nuclear button? If you were an alien in the neighborhood, wouldn't YOU be worried? I would.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 07:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5047391f-9419-4f2d-a88b-1b5e8a4783bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582583 |
BJ quacked John seems to believe lots of things. But do you believe with HVAC that discussions of the ancient alien theory must be censored and suppressed off all public media like HVAC does? He's done a damn effective job of killing all science discussion on this group. You aren't even a close second. He's a pro. ------------ Unwittingly, BJ is correct. I do a damn fine job of suppressing 'science' here...Kook science that is. And I've been doing the same thing for well over 25 years. I do not allow bloviated fools to talk about ghosts, esp, or ancient aliens as if they were proper subjects for science discussion. I would never seek to stop them, I simply provide the counterweight to their foolishness. This obviously make some kooks mad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 14:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5751ca21$0$43806$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #582591 |
On 06/03/2016 10:55 AM, HVAC wrote: > BJ quacked > John seems to believe lots of things. But do you believe with HVAC that discussions of the ancient alien theory must be censored and suppressed off all public media like HVAC does? He's done a damn effective job of > killing all science discussion on this group. You aren't even a close > second. He's a pro. > ------------ > > Unwittingly, BJ is correct. I do a damn fine job of suppressing 'science' here...Kook science that is. And I've been doing the same thing for well over 25 years. I do not allow bloviated fools to talk about ghosts, esp, or ancient aliens as if they were proper subjects for science discussion. I would never seek to stop them, I simply provide the counterweight to their foolishness. > > This obviously make some kooks mad > Why do you find it necessary to lie about what I believe?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 10:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nis8f8$nr4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582583 |
On 6/3/2016 9:35 AM, benj wrote: > John seems to believe lots of things. But do you believe with HVAC that > discussions of the ancient alien theory must be censored and suppressed > off all public media like HVAC does? No, I don't think discussions should be censored. However, you are of the opinion that any subject whatsoever is appropriate for a SCIENTIFIC discussion, and I disagree with that. There are some subjects that are OUTSIDE THE SCOPE or competencies of science, and those are off-topic. This isn't censorship. It is declining to engage in an off-topic discussion in a group devoted to a particular topic. I would not engage in a discussion about rock bands in a chemistry group either. > He's done a damn effective job of > killing all science discussion on this group. You aren't even a close > second. He's a pro. > > My idea is that if Aliens are here, they were attracted by our nukes and > are here not to save US but to save the universe from us doing something > exceptionally ignorant and destructive which pisses in THEIR bed. Yes, I know that's your position. As I've already outlined to you, I think this is extremely unlikely for a variety of reasons. 1. The likelihood that there are alien civilizations within 70 light years of us is extremely small. 2. Nukes are not a noticeable signal, compared with much larger signals (solar flares, volcanic activity) that occur more frequently and have been around a lot longer. We're talking about gnat-like signals for aliens. Sure, they're big for US, but not for aliens. 3. Aliens won't care if we tussle with each other, and certainly won't be inclined to intervene, any more than we intervene when clans of chimps kill each other or any more than we intervene when hornets invade a colony of bees. Why would our troubles matter to them? 4. Our activity here on this planet in no way pisses THEIR bed that I can see. Do those aliens live here? Does a nuclear bomb on Earth affect Jupiter, let alone something 40 or 50 light years away? Have they come to us and let ALL OF HUMANITY know that they are declaring Earth to be a national park for their species and we'd better not screw it up? You have this overinflated view that what humans do on Earth is important to anybody other than humans. Such arrogance! > Just > look at HVAC and ask yourself if that blowhard could be trusted with > even a GUN let alone a nuclear button? If you were an alien in the > neighborhood, wouldn't YOU be worried? I would. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 13:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1v143454a4st3.1n33i7os1utuz$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #582603 |
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:41:29 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> There are some subjects that are
> OUTSIDE THE SCOPE or competencies of science, and those are off-topic.
> This isn't censorship. It is declining to engage in an off-topic
> discussion in a group devoted to a particular topic. I would not engage
> in a discussion about rock bands in a chemistry group either.
No Bodbod, it is your being a scholar where scientists
are roaming :)
--
"vaghti nist, nist!"
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 09:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57518b68$0$17369$b1db1813$7968482@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #582535 |
On 06/03/2016 08:21 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/3/2016 2:13 AM, benj wrote: >> We most certainly did.The whole theory of evolution states this! You >> start with single celled animals and "progress" from there. You are >> obviously a more advanced lifeform than the chrinoids or trilobites you >> are said to have developed from! You are a much more "advanced" animal >> than any ape. Can apes play the piano? Sure they can talk, but if you >> talk to them the fact that they are primitive is immediately obvious. Of >> course animals "spoof" and apes DO LIE! But does that make them immoral >> or moral. I think your are really confused about right and wrong. > > Advanced is in the eye of the beholder. Cockroaches survive where humans > cannot and will be around, essentially unchanged since the last several > hundred million years, long after humans have expired. So wouldn't you > call the cockroach a more successful and refined design? Sure, they > can't do what HUMANS think are important things to do, but what makes > those things the qualities to measure against, compared to stability and > survivability? > > Are we more advanced than porpoises? Eyes were first developed in the > sea, and ever since animals left the sea, their eyesight has never been > as acute as they are in aquatic animals, even fish. And vision is our > most acute sense! How do we do in the ocean, compared to porpoises? We > are confined to a small fraction of the earth's surface area, compared > to the oceanic range of porpoises? > > Ben, you have such a parochial and self-absorbed view of "progress", as > though the more human-like an animal it is, the more progressed it is. > Ever consider that we may be a short-lived species that rose quickly and > will burn out quickly, a model for biological disaster? Still a dictionary denier I see. How do you ever expect to communicate in science jargon if you keep using your own dictionary? Boinker you would argue it's midnight at high noon. Save it for the courtroom. That kind of crap has NO place in science anymore that HVAC's dishonesty and ignorance. HVAC certainly ha not advanced much from a crinoid stem! Right, right? Fist bump dawg?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 09:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nis2h6$dhb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582564 |
On 6/3/2016 8:51 AM, benj wrote: > On 06/03/2016 08:21 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/3/2016 2:13 AM, benj wrote: >>> We most certainly did.The whole theory of evolution states this! You >>> start with single celled animals and "progress" from there. You are >>> obviously a more advanced lifeform than the chrinoids or trilobites you >>> are said to have developed from! You are a much more "advanced" animal >>> than any ape. Can apes play the piano? Sure they can talk, but if you >>> talk to them the fact that they are primitive is immediately obvious. Of >>> course animals "spoof" and apes DO LIE! But does that make them immoral >>> or moral. I think your are really confused about right and wrong. >> >> Advanced is in the eye of the beholder. Cockroaches survive where humans >> cannot and will be around, essentially unchanged since the last several >> hundred million years, long after humans have expired. So wouldn't you >> call the cockroach a more successful and refined design? Sure, they >> can't do what HUMANS think are important things to do, but what makes >> those things the qualities to measure against, compared to stability and >> survivability? >> >> Are we more advanced than porpoises? Eyes were first developed in the >> sea, and ever since animals left the sea, their eyesight has never been >> as acute as they are in aquatic animals, even fish. And vision is our >> most acute sense! How do we do in the ocean, compared to porpoises? We >> are confined to a small fraction of the earth's surface area, compared >> to the oceanic range of porpoises? >> >> Ben, you have such a parochial and self-absorbed view of "progress", as >> though the more human-like an animal it is, the more progressed it is. >> Ever consider that we may be a short-lived species that rose quickly and >> will burn out quickly, a model for biological disaster? > > Still a dictionary denier I see. What term are you referring to? "Advanced"? Is there a dictionary definition that points out that humans are more evolutionarily advanced than porpoises? If so, please provide the reference. Ben, I just want to reiterate that YOUR OWN HEAD does not count as a reference. What you MAKE UP because it makes sense to you by no means an assurance that it is true, or that scientists agree with you. We've already established that with what you made up about waves and media, and what you've made up about mathematics and reality, and what you've made up about volume being a necessary property for existence, among other things. If you think that evolution was EVER a theory that promotes the idea that natural selection produces ADVANCEMENT, then you have never read any scientific books about evolution. Or maybe you read some and then decided you didn't agree with it. > How do you ever expect to communicate > in science jargon if you keep using your own dictionary? Boinker you > would argue it's midnight at high noon. Save it for the courtroom. That > kind of crap has NO place in science anymore that HVAC's dishonesty and > ignorance. > > HVAC certainly ha not advanced much from a crinoid stem! > > Right, right? > > Fist bump dawg? > > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 10:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <575193cc$0$43836$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #582569 |
On 06/03/2016 10:00 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/3/2016 8:51 AM, benj wrote: >> On 06/03/2016 08:21 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 6/3/2016 2:13 AM, benj wrote: >>>> We most certainly did.The whole theory of evolution states this! You >>>> start with single celled animals and "progress" from there. You are >>>> obviously a more advanced lifeform than the chrinoids or trilobites you >>>> are said to have developed from! You are a much more "advanced" animal >>>> than any ape. Can apes play the piano? Sure they can talk, but if you >>>> talk to them the fact that they are primitive is immediately >>>> obvious. Of >>>> course animals "spoof" and apes DO LIE! But does that make them immoral >>>> or moral. I think your are really confused about right and wrong. >>> >>> Advanced is in the eye of the beholder. Cockroaches survive where humans >>> cannot and will be around, essentially unchanged since the last several >>> hundred million years, long after humans have expired. So wouldn't you >>> call the cockroach a more successful and refined design? Sure, they >>> can't do what HUMANS think are important things to do, but what makes >>> those things the qualities to measure against, compared to stability and >>> survivability? >>> >>> Are we more advanced than porpoises? Eyes were first developed in the >>> sea, and ever since animals left the sea, their eyesight has never been >>> as acute as they are in aquatic animals, even fish. And vision is our >>> most acute sense! How do we do in the ocean, compared to porpoises? We >>> are confined to a small fraction of the earth's surface area, compared >>> to the oceanic range of porpoises? >>> >>> Ben, you have such a parochial and self-absorbed view of "progress", as >>> though the more human-like an animal it is, the more progressed it is. >>> Ever consider that we may be a short-lived species that rose quickly and >>> will burn out quickly, a model for biological disaster? >> >> Still a dictionary denier I see. > > What term are you referring to? "Advanced"? Is there a dictionary > definition that points out that humans are more evolutionarily advanced > than porpoises? If so, please provide the reference. > > Ben, I just want to reiterate that YOUR OWN HEAD does not count as a > reference. What you MAKE UP because it makes sense to you by no means an > assurance that it is true, or that scientists agree with you. We've > already established that with what you made up about waves and media, > and what you've made up about mathematics and reality, and what you've > made up about volume being a necessary property for existence, among > other things. > > If you think that evolution was EVER a theory that promotes the idea > that natural selection produces ADVANCEMENT, then you have never read > any scientific books about evolution. Or maybe you read some and then > decided you didn't agree with it. So you think (sorry counselor, you are arguing) that single celled critters are as advanced as humans? That's insane. The word was progress and the definition was (why do you love references unless they are the dictionary? Your own head is NOT a reference dictionary! The definition was "higher, better, or more advanced". IT's simple nonsense to say that primitive lifeforms are as advanced as complex humans or animals such as mammals. That is an insane argument. One does not need "references" for obvious facts. No it is not dark outside Boinker, it's high noon and the sun is shining but I don't have a book to prove it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 10:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nis7iu$ma0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582580 |
On 6/3/2016 9:27 AM, benj wrote: > On 06/03/2016 10:00 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/3/2016 8:51 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 06/03/2016 08:21 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 6/3/2016 2:13 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> We most certainly did.The whole theory of evolution states this! You >>>>> start with single celled animals and "progress" from there. You are >>>>> obviously a more advanced lifeform than the chrinoids or trilobites >>>>> you >>>>> are said to have developed from! You are a much more "advanced" animal >>>>> than any ape. Can apes play the piano? Sure they can talk, but if you >>>>> talk to them the fact that they are primitive is immediately >>>>> obvious. Of >>>>> course animals "spoof" and apes DO LIE! But does that make them >>>>> immoral >>>>> or moral. I think your are really confused about right and wrong. >>>> >>>> Advanced is in the eye of the beholder. Cockroaches survive where >>>> humans >>>> cannot and will be around, essentially unchanged since the last several >>>> hundred million years, long after humans have expired. So wouldn't you >>>> call the cockroach a more successful and refined design? Sure, they >>>> can't do what HUMANS think are important things to do, but what makes >>>> those things the qualities to measure against, compared to stability >>>> and >>>> survivability? >>>> >>>> Are we more advanced than porpoises? Eyes were first developed in the >>>> sea, and ever since animals left the sea, their eyesight has never been >>>> as acute as they are in aquatic animals, even fish. And vision is our >>>> most acute sense! How do we do in the ocean, compared to porpoises? We >>>> are confined to a small fraction of the earth's surface area, compared >>>> to the oceanic range of porpoises? >>>> >>>> Ben, you have such a parochial and self-absorbed view of "progress", as >>>> though the more human-like an animal it is, the more progressed it is. >>>> Ever consider that we may be a short-lived species that rose quickly >>>> and >>>> will burn out quickly, a model for biological disaster? >>> >>> Still a dictionary denier I see. >> >> What term are you referring to? "Advanced"? Is there a dictionary >> definition that points out that humans are more evolutionarily advanced >> than porpoises? If so, please provide the reference. >> >> Ben, I just want to reiterate that YOUR OWN HEAD does not count as a >> reference. What you MAKE UP because it makes sense to you by no means an >> assurance that it is true, or that scientists agree with you. We've >> already established that with what you made up about waves and media, >> and what you've made up about mathematics and reality, and what you've >> made up about volume being a necessary property for existence, among >> other things. >> >> If you think that evolution was EVER a theory that promotes the idea >> that natural selection produces ADVANCEMENT, then you have never read >> any scientific books about evolution. Or maybe you read some and then >> decided you didn't agree with it. > > So you think (sorry counselor, you are arguing) that single celled > critters are as advanced as humans? From an evolutionary perspective, single-celled organisms are perfectly suited for their biological niche, at least as well as humans are. They survive in environments we would not be able to dream of surviving. In evolutionary terms, this is all that matters -- at least according to the scientific description of evolution. Keep in mind that you kept referring to what EVOLUTION says, but you were instead remarking on YOUR OWN PERCEPTIONS of what "advanced" should mean. > That's insane. The word was progress > and the definition was (why do you love references unless they are the > dictionary? Your own head is NOT a reference dictionary! The definition > was "higher, better, or more advanced". IT's simple nonsense to say that > primitive lifeforms are as advanced as complex humans or animals such as > mammals. That is an insane argument. No, it's really not. It's what evolution says. What YOU are doing is declaring that being "human-like" is what marks a species as being more "advanced", and so the more human-like, the more "advanced" the species is. So according to you, vertebrates are more advanced than sharks because a bony spine is closer to being human. According to you, mammals are more advanced than birds, because having mammary glands is closer to being human. According to you, monkeys are more advanced than porpoises, because they are closer to being human. But evolutionary theory doesn't say that. > > One does not need "references" for obvious facts. No it is not dark > outside Boinker, it's high noon and the sun is shining but I don't have > a book to prove it. > Well, Ben, you are free to express your OPINIONS about what makes a species "advanced", and you are free to declare that as far as you're concerned it's all obvious. That is what you do. You take stuff that pops out of YOUR OWN HEAD and declare that to be the truth, because it makes sense to you. Where you make a mistake is attributing your OPINION to what scientists or scientific theories say. You made the mistake of attributing your OPINION that waves require a medium to being what physicists say about that, right up until the point where your own reference showed you wrong. And here too, you have made the mistake of attributing your OPINION about what makes a species more evolutionarily "advanced" to being what biologists say about that. But they DON'T say that, which you will know, just as soon as you actually read what biologists say about evolution. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 13:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nj9puj$1vll$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582580 |
On 6/3/2016 9:27 AM, benj wrote: > So you think (sorry counselor, you are arguing) that single celled > critters are as advanced as humans? That's insane. The word was progress > and the definition was (why do you love references unless they are the > dictionary? Your own head is NOT a reference dictionary! The definition > was "higher, better, or more advanced". IT's simple nonsense to say that > primitive lifeforms are as advanced as complex humans or animals such as > mammals. That is an insane argument. > > One does not need "references" for obvious facts. No it is not dark > outside Boinker, it's high noon and the sun is shining but I don't have > a book to prove it. You might be interested in a group of donkeys GRIEVING over the death of one of the herd. Oh yeah, animals just operate from raw survival instinct and emotional responses are purely human. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuxrhiicesU -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <114037a6-880c-4be8-a39a-75013b214a34@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583868 |
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 11:59:37 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/3/2016 9:27 AM, benj wrote: > > So you think (sorry counselor, you are arguing) that single celled > > critters are as advanced as humans? That's insane. The word was progress > > and the definition was (why do you love references unless they are the > > dictionary? Your own head is NOT a reference dictionary! The definition > > was "higher, better, or more advanced". IT's simple nonsense to say that > > primitive lifeforms are as advanced as complex humans or animals such as > > mammals. That is an insane argument. > > > > One does not need "references" for obvious facts. No it is not dark > > outside Boinker, it's high noon and the sun is shining but I don't have > > a book to prove it. > > You might be interested in a group of donkeys GRIEVING over the death of > one of the herd. Oh yeah, animals just operate from raw survival > instinct and emotional responses are purely human. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuxrhiicesU He either won't look, or will claim it's CGI or some such bullshit. BJ simply can not fit the fact of animal emotions into his religion-based worldview. Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 21:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m8em2d-m4e.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583916 |
nuny@bid.nes <Alien8752@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 11:59:37 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/3/2016 9:27 AM, benj wrote: >> > So you think (sorry counselor, you are arguing) that single celled >> > critters are as advanced as humans? That's insane. The word was progress >> > and the definition was (why do you love references unless they are the >> > dictionary? Your own head is NOT a reference dictionary! The definition >> > was "higher, better, or more advanced". IT's simple nonsense to say that >> > primitive lifeforms are as advanced as complex humans or animals such as >> > mammals. That is an insane argument. >> > >> > One does not need "references" for obvious facts. No it is not dark >> > outside Boinker, it's high noon and the sun is shining but I don't have >> > a book to prove it. >> >> You might be interested in a group of donkeys GRIEVING over the death of >> one of the herd. Oh yeah, animals just operate from raw survival >> instinct and emotional responses are purely human. >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuxrhiicesU > > He either won't look, or will claim it's CGI or some such bullshit. BJ > simply can not fit the fact of animal emotions into his religion-based > worldview. > > > Mark L. Fergerson Last time I checked, fear, duriosity, anger, happiness, excitment and affection are emotions and all can trivially be observed in many animals. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 17:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57589066$0$9279$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #583929 |
On 06/08/2016 05:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > nuny@bid.nes <Alien8752@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 11:59:37 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 6/3/2016 9:27 AM, benj wrote: >>>> So you think (sorry counselor, you are arguing) that single celled >>>> critters are as advanced as humans? That's insane. The word was progress >>>> and the definition was (why do you love references unless they are the >>>> dictionary? Your own head is NOT a reference dictionary! The definition >>>> was "higher, better, or more advanced". IT's simple nonsense to say that >>>> primitive lifeforms are as advanced as complex humans or animals such as >>>> mammals. That is an insane argument. >>>> >>>> One does not need "references" for obvious facts. No it is not dark >>>> outside Boinker, it's high noon and the sun is shining but I don't have >>>> a book to prove it. >>> >>> You might be interested in a group of donkeys GRIEVING over the death of >>> one of the herd. Oh yeah, animals just operate from raw survival >>> instinct and emotional responses are purely human. >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuxrhiicesU >> >> He either won't look, or will claim it's CGI or some such bullshit. BJ >> simply can not fit the fact of animal emotions into his religion-based >> worldview. >> >> >> Mark L. Fergerson > > Last time I checked, fear, duriosity, anger, happiness, excitment and > affection are emotions and all can trivially be observed in many animals. So we now all agree that I don't agree with this? And which statements of MINE did you use to come to that conclusion? However I have said that you are interpreting the animal behavior from your HUMAN point of view. They clearly are often motivated by things we don't understand as well which is why wild animals tend to not be able to be domesticated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web