Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #712025 > unrolled thread

Church Ladies are the biggest obstacle to scientific progress

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Church Ladies are the biggest obstacle to scientific progress James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 11:56 -0800
    Re: Church Ladies are the biggest obstacle to scientific progress "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 12:47 -0800
      Re: Church Ladies are the biggest obstacle to scientific progress James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 13:35 -0800
        Re: Church Ladies are the biggest obstacle to scientific progress benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 18:14 -0500
          Re: Church Ladies are the biggest obstacle to scientific progress Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-07 22:40 -0600
            Re: Church Ladies are the biggest obstacle to scientific progress "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 14:43 -0800
              Re: Church Ladies are the biggest obstacle to scientific progress Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-09 22:11 -0600
                Re: Church Ladies are the biggest obstacle to scientific progress James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 11:04 -0800
      Re: Church Ladies are the biggest obstacle to scientific progress benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 17:53 -0500
        Re: Church Ladies are the biggest obstacle to scientific progress James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 14:58 -0800
      Re: Church Ladies are the biggest obstacle to scientific progress Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-07 18:17 -0600
    Re: Church Ladies are the biggest obstacle to scientific progress James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 11:58 -0800
    Re: Church Ladies are the biggest obstacle to scientific progress James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 11:20 -0800

#712025 — Church Ladies are the biggest obstacle to scientific progress

In the past the main obstacle to scientific progress was that many found 
the narrative associated with religion/bible to be convincing. Now the 
"church ladies" use science itself as the narrative that justifies their 
deliberate refusal to apply the scientific method.   

None of you "skeptics" are genuine skeptics. You are believers. You are 
church ladies. A church lady is somebody who defends scripture but doesn't 
really understand it. None of you pretenders has an argument or even 
bothers to think about any of this. Anybody can pretend to understand. 
It takes no skill, no intelligence, and it involves no work. 

One of the myths of human evolution is that the process produced a rational 
end product. This is not true. Humans are not rational but can best be 
described as hyper-pseudo-rational. This means that humans believe they are 
rational but are oriented to intellectually create their own pseudo-reality. 
(And the prevailing pseodo-reality can often become incorporated into a 
culture's social contract.) This is the reason intelligent people 
unavoidably find ourselves at odds with science-based fantasy. Human hyper-
pseudo-rationalism is the result of millions of years of communal selection. 
It's here to stay.

Church ladies wrap themselves in their self-righteous belief that they 
know the truth and, therefore, they don't have to consider contradictory 
evidence. They perceive their own cognitive dissonance as evidence that 
their opponents argument is wrong and then desperately start looking for 
anything that will re-establish their delicate sense of certainty. 

There is an inexhaustible supply of brain-dead church ladies, eager to 
pretend to understand all things conventional.  

Meteorology's storm theory is a hold-over from the nineteenth century when 
people were generally ignorant and believed plainly stupid things, like 
the notion that a pot on a stove was a good analogy for storms. And/or 
they believed the plainly dumb notion that H2O magically turned gaseous 
(in the atmosphere) making moist air lighter than dry air. And/or they 
believed that dry air above had magical structural abilities that produced 
a downward force that trapped convection (this involves meteorology's 
dishonest argument to explain why convection doesn't always happen). 
And/or they believed H2O's latent heat magically caused the gusty winds 
of storms. Church ladies are so gullible and so eager to believe that it 
was not even necessary for meteorologists to conceal the blatant dishonesty 
of these suppositions.

Much of science has been dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common 
denominator. Unscrupulous, pretend scientists employ the technigues of 
consensus (politics, propaganda) to dominate scientific discourse.  It's 
easy to pretend like you have a deep scientific understanding of a 
scientific subject if you just go along with what everybody else believes. 
It takes no talent to agree. It takes no intelligence to pretend to 
understand. And it takes no effort to lie and obfuscate in order to 
appeal to what people already want to believe. 

With science it is really easy to be seduced into believing you understand 
when actually you just believe.  For example, you believe that cold steam 
is in earth's atmosphere. You believe this despite the fact that nobody 
has ever detected it. And so, you have no empirical reason to believe it 
exists. You believe it, therefore, because a lot of other people believe 
it. This is the twisted logic of group think. And the multitude of 
brain-dead believers, like yourselves, are the reason it works. 

In other words, much of science lies about water because all of science 
appeals to the lowest common denominator of science consumer--and 
everybody "knows" water is simple. Well, water isn't simple. And pretending 
it is simple is a major obstacle to progress in many disciplines, like 
meteorology. 

Exposing this pretense is a theme in the first chapter of my next book.   

Here is the first paragraph: 

Bill -- Chapter One: Air Brakes (Plasma [1 of 5]) 
ht(remove this)tp://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060 

Are you the kind of person that suspects an underlying complexity to our 
reality that nobody quite understands so everybody just pretends to 
understand and tacitly agrees to not call attention to each others 
pretenses? Are you the kind of person that suspects that different academic 
factions have colluded to sow confusion so that their collective failure to 
understand this underlying complexity of our reality is not revealed to the 
public? Are you the kind of person that believes the public can so easily be 
led astray by pretentious, sciencey sounding rhetoric that diverts attention 
away from the wider revelation of this poorly understood underlying 
complexity of our reality? Me neither. So I was just as perplexed as anybody 
would be when I first encountered the the zeroing out of polarity with with 
fully coordinated (symmetric) hydrogen bonding between H2O molecules (as in 
liquid water). 

As you can imagine, I have no interests in discussing any of this here. Trying 
to explain anything about the details of H2O to someone who refuses to 
understand basic concepts like the boiling temperature of H2O is as pointless 
as trying to teach evolution to a dog. 

I think you all have done about as good a job as possible to demonstrate the 
validity of meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me 
to present an aggregation of the best evidence to support the current 
paradigm of meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to this 
thread. Because here's the thing: meteorologists won't do what you did.  
They know it's futile.  They know that any attempt to demonstrate the 
validity of their vague model will only expose it as absurdly flawed. 

I also think you've done as good a job as possible to dispute my 
theoretical thinking. Of course (once again) you are extremely scattered 
and desperate. But that's to be expected from church ladies. Intelligent 
people will see through that and realize that you actually made some 
effort.  Again, and for the same reasons, this is not something 
meteorologists would ever do. 

Thank you for your participation.

Maybe I will mention y'all in my Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

Peace. Out.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#712030

On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 11:56:30 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> In the past the main obstacle to scientific progress was that many found 
> the narrative associated with religion/bible to be convincing. Now the 
> "church ladies" use science itself as the narrative that justifies their 
> deliberate refusal to apply the scientific method.   
> 
> None of you "skeptics" are genuine skeptics. You are believers. You are 
> church ladies. A church lady is somebody who defends scripture but doesn't 
> really understand it. None of you pretenders has an argument or even 
> bothers to think about any of this. Anybody can pretend to understand. 
> It takes no skill, no intelligence, and it involves no work. 
> 
> One of the myths of human evolution is that the process produced a rational 
> end product. This is not true. Humans are not rational but can best be 
> described as hyper-pseudo-rational. This means that humans believe they are 
> rational but are oriented to intellectually create their own pseudo-reality. 
> (And the prevailing pseodo-reality can often become incorporated into a 
> culture's social contract.) This is the reason intelligent people 
> unavoidably find ourselves at odds with science-based fantasy. Human hyper-
> pseudo-rationalism is the result of millions of years of communal selection. 
> It's here to stay.
> 
> Church ladies wrap themselves in their self-righteous belief that they 
> know the truth and, therefore, they don't have to consider contradictory 
> evidence. They perceive their own cognitive dissonance as evidence that 
> their opponents argument is wrong and then desperately start looking for 
> anything that will re-establish their delicate sense of certainty. 
> 
> There is an inexhaustible supply of brain-dead church ladies, eager to 
> pretend to understand all things conventional.  
> 
> Meteorology's storm theory is a hold-over from the nineteenth century when 
> people were generally ignorant and believed plainly stupid things, like 
> the notion that a pot on a stove was a good analogy for storms. And/or 
> they believed the plainly dumb notion that H2O magically turned gaseous 
> (in the atmosphere) making moist air lighter than dry air. And/or they 
> believed that dry air above had magical structural abilities that produced 
> a downward force that trapped convection (this involves meteorology's 
> dishonest argument to explain why convection doesn't always happen). 
> And/or they believed H2O's latent heat magically caused the gusty winds 
> of storms. Church ladies are so gullible and so eager to believe that it 
> was not even necessary for meteorologists to conceal the blatant dishonesty 
> of these suppositions.
> 
> Much of science has been dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common 
> denominator. Unscrupulous, pretend scientists employ the technigues of 
> consensus (politics, propaganda) to dominate scientific discourse.  It's 
> easy to pretend like you have a deep scientific understanding of a 
> scientific subject if you just go along with what everybody else believes. 
> It takes no talent to agree. It takes no intelligence to pretend to 
> understand. And it takes no effort to lie and obfuscate in order to 
> appeal to what people already want to believe. 
> 
> With science it is really easy to be seduced into believing you understand 
> when actually you just believe.  For example, you believe that cold steam 
> is in earth's atmosphere. You believe this despite the fact that nobody 
> has ever detected it. And so, you have no empirical reason to believe it 
> exists. You believe it, therefore, because a lot of other people believe 
> it. This is the twisted logic of group think. And the multitude of 
> brain-dead believers, like yourselves, are the reason it works. 
> 
> In other words, much of science lies about water because all of science 
> appeals to the lowest common denominator of science consumer--and 
> everybody "knows" water is simple. Well, water isn't simple. And pretending 
> it is simple is a major obstacle to progress in many disciplines, like 
> meteorology. 
> 
> Exposing this pretense is a theme in the first chapter of my next book.   
> 
> Here is the first paragraph: 
> 
> Bill -- Chapter One: Air Brakes (Plasma [1 of 5]) 
> ht(remove this)tp://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060 
> 
> Are you the kind of person that suspects an underlying complexity to our 
> reality that nobody quite understands so everybody just pretends to 
> understand and tacitly agrees to not call attention to each others 
> pretenses? Are you the kind of person that suspects that different academic 
> factions have colluded to sow confusion so that their collective failure to 
> understand this underlying complexity of our reality is not revealed to the 
> public? Are you the kind of person that believes the public can so easily be 
> led astray by pretentious, sciencey sounding rhetoric that diverts attention 
> away from the wider revelation of this poorly understood underlying 
> complexity of our reality? Me neither. So I was just as perplexed as anybody 
> would be when I first encountered the the zeroing out of polarity with with 
> fully coordinated (symmetric) hydrogen bonding between H2O molecules (as in 
> liquid water). 
> 
> As you can imagine, I have no interests in discussing any of this here. Trying 
> to explain anything about the details of H2O to someone who refuses to 
> understand basic concepts like the boiling temperature of H2O is as pointless 
> as trying to teach evolution to a dog. 
> 
> I think you all have done about as good a job as possible to demonstrate the 
> validity of meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me 
> to present an aggregation of the best evidence to support the current 
> paradigm of meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to this 
> thread. Because here's the thing: meteorologists won't do what you did.  
> They know it's futile.  They know that any attempt to demonstrate the 
> validity of their vague model will only expose it as absurdly flawed. 
> 
> I also think you've done as good a job as possible to dispute my 
> theoretical thinking. Of course (once again) you are extremely scattered 
> and desperate. But that's to be expected from church ladies. Intelligent 
> people will see through that and realize that you actually made some 
> effort.  Again, and for the same reasons, this is not something 
> meteorologists would ever do. 
> 
> Thank you for your participation.
> 
> Maybe I will mention y'all in my Nobel Prize acceptance speech.
> 
> Peace. Out.
> 
> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

That means Mitch is both gay and brain washed.He uses his God to explain the universe.He uses faith of God to explain all that is.He has a simple mind and simple truth is he can not think Bert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#712037

On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 12:47:05 PM UTC-8, reber G=emc^2 wrote:

> That means Mitch is both gay and brain washed.He uses his God to explain the universe.He uses faith of God to explain all that is.He has a simple mind and simple truth is he can not think Bert

I just figured he had Tourette's syndrome, or something like that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#712055

On 11/7/2018 4:35 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 12:47:05 PM UTC-8, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> 
>> That means Mitch is both gay and brain washed.He uses his God to explain the universe.He uses faith of God to explain all that is.He has a simple mind and simple truth is he can not think Bert
> 
> I just figured he had Tourette's syndrome, or something like that.
> 
Something like that! :-)

"Cold Steam" + "Heavy Air" I smell a revolution in the meteorological 
theory!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#712094

On 11/7/2018 5:14 PM, benj wrote:
> On 11/7/2018 4:35 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 12:47:05 PM UTC-8, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
>>
>>> That means Mitch is both gay and brain washed.He uses his God to
>>> explain the universe.He uses faith of God to explain all that is.He
>>> has a simple mind and simple truth is he can not think Bert
>>
>> I just figured he had Tourette's syndrome, or something like that.
>>
> Something like that! :-)
> 
> "Cold Steam" + "Heavy Air" I smell a revolution in the meteorological
> theory!

yea, I smell something too!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#712228

On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 8:40:20 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 11/7/2018 5:14 PM, benj wrote:
> > On 11/7/2018 4:35 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 12:47:05 PM UTC-8, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> >>
> >>> That means Mitch is both gay and brain washed.He uses his God to
> >>> explain the universe.He uses faith of God to explain all that is.He
> >>> has a simple mind and simple truth is he can not think Bert
> >>
> >> I just figured he had Tourette's syndrome, or something like that.
> >>
> > Something like that! :-)
> > 
> > "Cold Steam" + "Heavy Air" I smell a revolution in the meteorological
> > theory!
> 
> yea, I smell something too!

Their a Black Mass.They have God coming out of their fat ass.Bert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#712249

On 11/9/2018 4:43 PM, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 8:40:20 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 11/7/2018 5:14 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 11/7/2018 4:35 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 12:47:05 PM UTC-8, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That means Mitch is both gay and brain washed.He uses his God to
>>>>> explain the universe.He uses faith of God to explain all that is.He
>>>>> has a simple mind and simple truth is he can not think Bert
>>>>
>>>> I just figured he had Tourette's syndrome, or something like that.
>>>>
>>> Something like that! :-)
>>>
>>> "Cold Steam" + "Heavy Air" I smell a revolution in the meteorological
>>> theory!
>>
>> yea, I smell something too!
> 
> Their a Black Mass.They have God coming out of their fat ass.Bert
> 

   Holy sh*t !

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#712299

On Friday, November 9, 2018 at 8:11:39 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 11/9/2018 4:43 PM, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 8:40:20 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >> On 11/7/2018 5:14 PM, benj wrote:
> >>> On 11/7/2018 4:35 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 12:47:05 PM UTC-8, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> That means Mitch is both gay and brain washed.He uses his God to
> >>>>> explain the universe.He uses faith of God to explain all that is.He
> >>>>> has a simple mind and simple truth is he can not think Bert
> >>>>
> >>>> I just figured he had Tourette's syndrome, or something like that.
> >>>>
> >>> Something like that! :-)
> >>>
> >>> "Cold Steam" + "Heavy Air" I smell a revolution in the meteorological
> >>> theory!
> >>
> >> yea, I smell something too!
> > 
> > Their a Black Mass.They have God coming out of their fat ass.Bert
> > 
> 
>    Holy sh*t !

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#712050

On 11/7/2018 3:47 PM, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 11:56:30 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> In the past the main obstacle to scientific progress was that many found
>> the narrative associated with religion/bible to be convincing. Now the
>> "church ladies" use science itself as the narrative that justifies their
>> deliberate refusal to apply the scientific method.
>>
>> None of you "skeptics" are genuine skeptics. You are believers. You are
>> church ladies. A church lady is somebody who defends scripture but doesn't
>> really understand it. None of you pretenders has an argument or even
>> bothers to think about any of this. Anybody can pretend to understand.
>> It takes no skill, no intelligence, and it involves no work.
>>
>> One of the myths of human evolution is that the process produced a rational
>> end product. This is not true. Humans are not rational but can best be
>> described as hyper-pseudo-rational. This means that humans believe they are
>> rational but are oriented to intellectually create their own pseudo-reality.
>> (And the prevailing pseodo-reality can often become incorporated into a
>> culture's social contract.) This is the reason intelligent people
>> unavoidably find ourselves at odds with science-based fantasy. Human hyper-
>> pseudo-rationalism is the result of millions of years of communal selection.
>> It's here to stay.
>>
>> Church ladies wrap themselves in their self-righteous belief that they
>> know the truth and, therefore, they don't have to consider contradictory
>> evidence. They perceive their own cognitive dissonance as evidence that
>> their opponents argument is wrong and then desperately start looking for
>> anything that will re-establish their delicate sense of certainty.
>>
>> There is an inexhaustible supply of brain-dead church ladies, eager to
>> pretend to understand all things conventional.
>>
>> Meteorology's storm theory is a hold-over from the nineteenth century when
>> people were generally ignorant and believed plainly stupid things, like
>> the notion that a pot on a stove was a good analogy for storms. And/or
>> they believed the plainly dumb notion that H2O magically turned gaseous
>> (in the atmosphere) making moist air lighter than dry air. And/or they
>> believed that dry air above had magical structural abilities that produced
>> a downward force that trapped convection (this involves meteorology's
>> dishonest argument to explain why convection doesn't always happen).
>> And/or they believed H2O's latent heat magically caused the gusty winds
>> of storms. Church ladies are so gullible and so eager to believe that it
>> was not even necessary for meteorologists to conceal the blatant dishonesty
>> of these suppositions.
>>
>> Much of science has been dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common
>> denominator. Unscrupulous, pretend scientists employ the technigues of
>> consensus (politics, propaganda) to dominate scientific discourse.  It's
>> easy to pretend like you have a deep scientific understanding of a
>> scientific subject if you just go along with what everybody else believes.
>> It takes no talent to agree. It takes no intelligence to pretend to
>> understand. And it takes no effort to lie and obfuscate in order to
>> appeal to what people already want to believe.
>>
>> With science it is really easy to be seduced into believing you understand
>> when actually you just believe.  For example, you believe that cold steam
>> is in earth's atmosphere. You believe this despite the fact that nobody
>> has ever detected it. And so, you have no empirical reason to believe it
>> exists. You believe it, therefore, because a lot of other people believe
>> it. This is the twisted logic of group think. And the multitude of
>> brain-dead believers, like yourselves, are the reason it works.
>>
>> In other words, much of science lies about water because all of science
>> appeals to the lowest common denominator of science consumer--and
>> everybody "knows" water is simple. Well, water isn't simple. And pretending
>> it is simple is a major obstacle to progress in many disciplines, like
>> meteorology.
>>
>> Exposing this pretense is a theme in the first chapter of my next book.
>>
>> Here is the first paragraph:
>>
>> Bill -- Chapter One: Air Brakes (Plasma [1 of 5])
>> ht(remove this)tp://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060
>>
>> Are you the kind of person that suspects an underlying complexity to our
>> reality that nobody quite understands so everybody just pretends to
>> understand and tacitly agrees to not call attention to each others
>> pretenses? Are you the kind of person that suspects that different academic
>> factions have colluded to sow confusion so that their collective failure to
>> understand this underlying complexity of our reality is not revealed to the
>> public? Are you the kind of person that believes the public can so easily be
>> led astray by pretentious, sciencey sounding rhetoric that diverts attention
>> away from the wider revelation of this poorly understood underlying
>> complexity of our reality? Me neither. So I was just as perplexed as anybody
>> would be when I first encountered the the zeroing out of polarity with with
>> fully coordinated (symmetric) hydrogen bonding between H2O molecules (as in
>> liquid water).
>>
>> As you can imagine, I have no interests in discussing any of this here. Trying
>> to explain anything about the details of H2O to someone who refuses to
>> understand basic concepts like the boiling temperature of H2O is as pointless
>> as trying to teach evolution to a dog.
>>
>> I think you all have done about as good a job as possible to demonstrate the
>> validity of meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me
>> to present an aggregation of the best evidence to support the current
>> paradigm of meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to this
>> thread. Because here's the thing: meteorologists won't do what you did.
>> They know it's futile.  They know that any attempt to demonstrate the
>> validity of their vague model will only expose it as absurdly flawed.
>>
>> I also think you've done as good a job as possible to dispute my
>> theoretical thinking. Of course (once again) you are extremely scattered
>> and desperate. But that's to be expected from church ladies. Intelligent
>> people will see through that and realize that you actually made some
>> effort.  Again, and for the same reasons, this is not something
>> meteorologists would ever do.
>>
>> Thank you for your participation.
>>
>> Maybe I will mention y'all in my Nobel Prize acceptance speech.
>>
>> Peace. Out.
>>
>> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
> 
> That means Mitch is both gay and brain washed.He uses his God to explain the universe.He uses faith of God to explain all that is.He has a simple mind and simple truth is he can not think Bert
> 
Bert and McFly agree!  Mitch is an idiot! (Well even a blind pig finds 
an acorn every now and then)  So now comes real science progress! Think 
about it. Finally the merger of the theories of "heavy air" and "cold 
steam"! I smell Nobel!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#712051

On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 2:53:08 PM UTC-8, benj wrote:
> On 11/7/2018 3:47 PM, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 11:56:30 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >> In the past the main obstacle to scientific progress was that many found
> >> the narrative associated with religion/bible to be convincing. Now the
> >> "church ladies" use science itself as the narrative that justifies their
> >> deliberate refusal to apply the scientific method.
> >>
> >> None of you "skeptics" are genuine skeptics. You are believers. You are
> >> church ladies. A church lady is somebody who defends scripture but doesn't
> >> really understand it. None of you pretenders has an argument or even
> >> bothers to think about any of this. Anybody can pretend to understand.
> >> It takes no skill, no intelligence, and it involves no work.
> >>
> >> One of the myths of human evolution is that the process produced a rational
> >> end product. This is not true. Humans are not rational but can best be
> >> described as hyper-pseudo-rational. This means that humans believe they are
> >> rational but are oriented to intellectually create their own pseudo-reality.
> >> (And the prevailing pseodo-reality can often become incorporated into a
> >> culture's social contract.) This is the reason intelligent people
> >> unavoidably find ourselves at odds with science-based fantasy. Human hyper-
> >> pseudo-rationalism is the result of millions of years of communal selection.
> >> It's here to stay.
> >>
> >> Church ladies wrap themselves in their self-righteous belief that they
> >> know the truth and, therefore, they don't have to consider contradictory
> >> evidence. They perceive their own cognitive dissonance as evidence that
> >> their opponents argument is wrong and then desperately start looking for
> >> anything that will re-establish their delicate sense of certainty.
> >>
> >> There is an inexhaustible supply of brain-dead church ladies, eager to
> >> pretend to understand all things conventional.
> >>
> >> Meteorology's storm theory is a hold-over from the nineteenth century when
> >> people were generally ignorant and believed plainly stupid things, like
> >> the notion that a pot on a stove was a good analogy for storms. And/or
> >> they believed the plainly dumb notion that H2O magically turned gaseous
> >> (in the atmosphere) making moist air lighter than dry air. And/or they
> >> believed that dry air above had magical structural abilities that produced
> >> a downward force that trapped convection (this involves meteorology's
> >> dishonest argument to explain why convection doesn't always happen).
> >> And/or they believed H2O's latent heat magically caused the gusty winds
> >> of storms. Church ladies are so gullible and so eager to believe that it
> >> was not even necessary for meteorologists to conceal the blatant dishonesty
> >> of these suppositions.
> >>
> >> Much of science has been dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common
> >> denominator. Unscrupulous, pretend scientists employ the technigues of
> >> consensus (politics, propaganda) to dominate scientific discourse.  It's
> >> easy to pretend like you have a deep scientific understanding of a
> >> scientific subject if you just go along with what everybody else believes.
> >> It takes no talent to agree. It takes no intelligence to pretend to
> >> understand. And it takes no effort to lie and obfuscate in order to
> >> appeal to what people already want to believe.
> >>
> >> With science it is really easy to be seduced into believing you understand
> >> when actually you just believe.  For example, you believe that cold steam
> >> is in earth's atmosphere. You believe this despite the fact that nobody
> >> has ever detected it. And so, you have no empirical reason to believe it
> >> exists. You believe it, therefore, because a lot of other people believe
> >> it. This is the twisted logic of group think. And the multitude of
> >> brain-dead believers, like yourselves, are the reason it works.
> >>
> >> In other words, much of science lies about water because all of science
> >> appeals to the lowest common denominator of science consumer--and
> >> everybody "knows" water is simple. Well, water isn't simple. And pretending
> >> it is simple is a major obstacle to progress in many disciplines, like
> >> meteorology.
> >>
> >> Exposing this pretense is a theme in the first chapter of my next book.
> >>
> >> Here is the first paragraph:
> >>
> >> Bill -- Chapter One: Air Brakes (Plasma [1 of 5])
> >> ht(remove this)tp://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060
> >>
> >> Are you the kind of person that suspects an underlying complexity to our
> >> reality that nobody quite understands so everybody just pretends to
> >> understand and tacitly agrees to not call attention to each others
> >> pretenses? Are you the kind of person that suspects that different academic
> >> factions have colluded to sow confusion so that their collective failure to
> >> understand this underlying complexity of our reality is not revealed to the
> >> public? Are you the kind of person that believes the public can so easily be
> >> led astray by pretentious, sciencey sounding rhetoric that diverts attention
> >> away from the wider revelation of this poorly understood underlying
> >> complexity of our reality? Me neither. So I was just as perplexed as anybody
> >> would be when I first encountered the the zeroing out of polarity with with
> >> fully coordinated (symmetric) hydrogen bonding between H2O molecules (as in
> >> liquid water).
> >>
> >> As you can imagine, I have no interests in discussing any of this here. Trying
> >> to explain anything about the details of H2O to someone who refuses to
> >> understand basic concepts like the boiling temperature of H2O is as pointless
> >> as trying to teach evolution to a dog.
> >>
> >> I think you all have done about as good a job as possible to demonstrate the
> >> validity of meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me
> >> to present an aggregation of the best evidence to support the current
> >> paradigm of meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to this
> >> thread. Because here's the thing: meteorologists won't do what you did.
> >> They know it's futile.  They know that any attempt to demonstrate the
> >> validity of their vague model will only expose it as absurdly flawed.
> >>
> >> I also think you've done as good a job as possible to dispute my
> >> theoretical thinking. Of course (once again) you are extremely scattered
> >> and desperate. But that's to be expected from church ladies. Intelligent
> >> people will see through that and realize that you actually made some
> >> effort.  Again, and for the same reasons, this is not something
> >> meteorologists would ever do.
> >>
> >> Thank you for your participation.
> >>
> >> Maybe I will mention y'all in my Nobel Prize acceptance speech.
> >>
> >> Peace. Out.
> >>
> >> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
> > 
> > That means Mitch is both gay and brain washed.He uses his God to explain the universe.He uses faith of God to explain all that is.He has a simple mind and simple truth is he can not think Bert
> > 
> Bert and McFly agree!  Mitch is an idiot! (Well even a blind pig finds 
> an acorn every now and then)  So now comes real science progress! Think 
> about it. Finally the merger of the theories of "heavy air" and "cold 
> steam"! I smell Nobel!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#712060

On 11/7/2018 2:47 PM, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 11:56:30 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> In the past the main obstacle to scientific progress was that many found 
>> the narrative associated with religion/bible to be convincing. Now the 
>> "church ladies" use science itself as the narrative that justifies their 
>> deliberate refusal to apply the scientific method.   

James, I have seen them marching in the streets, row after row, dressed
in all black, thumping bibles, 10 across each row, for miles and miles,
pointed black shoes, singing that same song over and over......  Church
Ladies Rule!

>>
>> None of you "skeptics" are genuine skeptics. You are believers. You are 
>> church ladies. A church lady is somebody who defends scripture but doesn't 
>> really understand it. None of you pretenders has an argument or even 
>> bothers to think about any of this. 

na, James have to be asked to join the Church Ladies, they do DNA on
you, if you not at least 1/32, your are out.

>> Anybody can pretend to understand. 
>> It takes no skill, no intelligence, and it involves no work. 

yes, Brother McGinn, you have proven this with your own deeds, good for you!


>> One of the myths of human evolution is that the process produced a rational 
>> end product. This is not true. Humans are not rational but can best be 
>> described as hyper-pseudo-rational. This means that humans believe they are 
>> rational but are oriented to intellectually create their own pseudo-reality.

Yes, Brother McGinn, your world without Water Vapor is your own
pseudo-reality, Brilliant!!


>> (And the prevailing pseodo-reality can often become incorporated into a 
>> culture's social contract.) This is the reason intelligent people 
>> unavoidably find ourselves at odds with science-based fantasy. Human hyper-
>> pseudo-rationalism is the result of millions of years of communal selection. 
>> It's here to stay.

James, as the Democrats continue to legalize illegal drugs like medical
meth, heroin and LSD, this is true

>>
>> Church ladies wrap themselves in their self-righteous belief that they 
>> know the truth and, therefore, they don't have to consider contradictory 
>> evidence. They perceive their own cognitive dissonance as evidence that 
>> their opponents argument is wrong and then desperately start looking for 
>> anything that will re-establish their delicate sense of certainty. 

sure, Brother James, they also stand in circles swaying and a chanting
with their pointy black hats and pointy black shoes on.  This is a happy
time for them!

>>
>> There is an inexhaustible supply of brain-dead church ladies, eager to 
>> pretend to understand all things conventional.  

no, they are intelligent as our national leaders!

>>
>> Meteorology's storm theory is a hold-over from the nineteenth century when 
>> people were generally ignorant and believed plainly stupid things, like 
>> the notion that a pot on a stove was a good analogy for storms. And/or 
>> they believed the plainly dumb notion that H2O magically turned gaseous 
>> (in the atmosphere) making moist air lighter than dry air. And/or they 
>> believed that dry air above had magical structural abilities that produced 
>> a downward force that trapped convection (this involves meteorology's 
>> dishonest argument to explain why convection doesn't always happen). 
>> And/or they believed H2O's latent heat magically caused the gusty winds 
>> of storms. Church ladies are so gullible and so eager to believe that it 
>> was not even necessary for meteorologists to conceal the blatant dishonesty 
>> of these suppositions.

Don't call Church Ladies stupid, they all took conceal carry classes.

>>
>> Much of science has been dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common 
>> denominator. Unscrupulous, pretend scientists employ the technigues of 
>> consensus (politics, propaganda) to dominate scientific discourse.  It's 
>> easy to pretend like you have a deep scientific understanding of a 
>> scientific subject if you just go along with what everybody else believes. 
>> It takes no talent to agree. It takes no intelligence to pretend to 
>> understand. And it takes no effort to lie and obfuscate in order to 
>> appeal to what people already want to believe. 

You have done well, Brother McGinn, your paragraph above is proof of
your actions!

>>
>> With science it is really easy to be seduced into believing you understand 
>> when actually you just believe.  For example, you believe that cold steam 
>> is in earth's atmosphere. You believe this despite the fact that nobody 
>> has ever detected it. And so, you have no empirical reason to believe it 
>> exists. You believe it, therefore, because a lot of other people believe 
>> it. This is the twisted logic of group think. And the multitude of 
>> brain-dead believers, like yourselves, are the reason it works. 

Don't give up the faith, Brother McGinn,
you will find your cold steam!
Some say it is Fog,
over a bog,
or with a frog
some say it is odd
that you are steamed
over your missing cold steam

>>
>> In other words, much of science lies about water because all of science 
>> appeals to the lowest common denominator of science consumer--and 
>> everybody "knows" water is simple. Well, water isn't simple. And pretending 
>> it is simple is a major obstacle to progress in many disciplines, like 
>> meteorology. 

Ask a Fish, they live in Water 100% of the time. They Live and Breath Water.

>>
>> Exposing this pretense is a theme in the first chapter of my next book.   
>>
>> Here is the first paragraph: 
>>
>> Bill -- Chapter One: Air Brakes (Plasma [1 of 5]) 
>> ht(remove this)tp://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060 

so you book is on Air Brakes!  Good for you, a new topic, finally.

>>
>> Are you the kind of person that suspects an underlying complexity to our 
>> reality that nobody quite understands so everybody just pretends to 
>> understand and tacitly agrees to not call attention to each others 
>> pretenses? 

    Like in The Matrix,  or people with dissociative identity disorder

>> Are you the kind of person that suspects that different academic 
>> factions have colluded to sow confusion so that their collective failure to 
>> understand this underlying complexity of our reality is not revealed to the 
>> public? 

yea, like Engrlish Teachers, they are assholes, make you learn to spell
really hard words!

>> Are you the kind of person that believes the public can so easily be 
>> led astray by pretentious, sciencey sounding rhetoric that diverts attention 
>> away from the wider revelation of this poorly understood underlying 
>> complexity of our reality? 

yea, those sciencey sounding words and "equations" holy CRAP! you know
that is just bullshit right from the get go.

>> Me neither. So I was just as perplexed as anybody 
>> would be when I first encountered the the zeroing out of polarity with with 
>> fully coordinated (symmetric) hydrogen bonding between H2O molecules (as in 
>> liquid water). 

are you still perplexed, Brother McGinn ?

>>
>> As you can imagine, I have no interests in discussing any of this here. Trying 
>> to explain anything about the details of H2O to someone who refuses to 
>> understand basic concepts like the boiling temperature of H2O is as pointless 
>> as trying to teach evolution to a dog. 

to a dog?    or a frog ?
in a Bog ?
 is it a slog ?

>>
>> I think you all have done about as good a job as possible to demonstrate the 
>> validity of meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me 
>> to present an aggregation of the best evidence to support the current 
>> paradigm of meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to this 
>> thread. Because here's the thing: meteorologists won't do what you did.  
>> They know it's futile.  They know that any attempt to demonstrate the 
>> validity of their vague model will only expose it as absurdly flawed. 

so, by pointing to this thread, what do meteorologist do ?

>>
>> I also think you've done as good a job as possible to dispute my 
>> theoretical thinking. 

 your "theoretical thinking" is your "imagination", i.e. "fiction"

>> Of course (once again) I am extremely scattered 
>> and desperate. But that's to be expected from church ladies. Intelligent 
>> people will see through that and realize that you actually made some 
>> effort.  Again, and for the same reasons, this is not something 
>> meteorologists would ever do. 

Here you go Brother James;
https://ladieschurchsuits.com/

>>
>> Thank you for your participation.
>>
>> Maybe I will mention y'all in my Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

I will write it for you,  "Tanks Everybody!"

>>
>> Peace. Out.
>>
>> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
> 
> That means Mitch is both gay and brain washed.He uses his God to explain the universe.He uses faith of God to explain all that is.He has a simple mind and simple truth is he can not think Bert
> 

Bert calls it, + right on.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#712128

On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 11:56:30 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> In the past the main obstacle to scientific progress was that many found 
> the narrative associated with religion/bible to be convincing. Now the 
> "church ladies" use science itself as the narrative that justifies their 
> deliberate refusal to apply the scientific method.   
> 
> None of you "skeptics" are genuine skeptics. You are believers. You are 
> church ladies. A church lady is somebody who defends scripture but doesn't 
> really understand it. None of you pretenders has an argument or even 
> bothers to think about any of this. Anybody can pretend to understand. 
> It takes no skill, no intelligence, and it involves no work. 
> 
> One of the myths of human evolution is that the process produced a rational 
> end product. This is not true. Humans are not rational but can best be 
> described as hyper-pseudo-rational. This means that humans believe they are 
> rational but are oriented to intellectually create their own pseudo-reality. 
> (And the prevailing pseodo-reality can often become incorporated into a 
> culture's social contract.) This is the reason intelligent people 
> unavoidably find ourselves at odds with science-based fantasy. Human hyper-
> pseudo-rationalism is the result of millions of years of communal selection. 
> It's here to stay.
> 
> Church ladies wrap themselves in their self-righteous belief that they 
> know the truth and, therefore, they don't have to consider contradictory 
> evidence. They perceive their own cognitive dissonance as evidence that 
> their opponents argument is wrong and then desperately start looking for 
> anything that will re-establish their delicate sense of certainty. 
> 
> There is an inexhaustible supply of brain-dead church ladies, eager to 
> pretend to understand all things conventional.  
> 
> Meteorology's storm theory is a hold-over from the nineteenth century when 
> people were generally ignorant and believed plainly stupid things, like 
> the notion that a pot on a stove was a good analogy for storms. And/or 
> they believed the plainly dumb notion that H2O magically turned gaseous 
> (in the atmosphere) making moist air lighter than dry air. And/or they 
> believed that dry air above had magical structural abilities that produced 
> a downward force that trapped convection (this involves meteorology's 
> dishonest argument to explain why convection doesn't always happen). 
> And/or they believed H2O's latent heat magically caused the gusty winds 
> of storms. Church ladies are so gullible and so eager to believe that it 
> was not even necessary for meteorologists to conceal the blatant dishonesty 
> of these suppositions.
> 
> Much of science has been dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common 
> denominator. Unscrupulous, pretend scientists employ the technigues of 
> consensus (politics, propaganda) to dominate scientific discourse.  It's 
> easy to pretend like you have a deep scientific understanding of a 
> scientific subject if you just go along with what everybody else believes. 
> It takes no talent to agree. It takes no intelligence to pretend to 
> understand. And it takes no effort to lie and obfuscate in order to 
> appeal to what people already want to believe. 
> 
> With science it is really easy to be seduced into believing you understand 
> when actually you just believe.  For example, you believe that cold steam 
> is in earth's atmosphere. You believe this despite the fact that nobody 
> has ever detected it. And so, you have no empirical reason to believe it 
> exists. You believe it, therefore, because a lot of other people believe 
> it. This is the twisted logic of group think. And the multitude of 
> brain-dead believers, like yourselves, are the reason it works. 
> 
> In other words, much of science lies about water because all of science 
> appeals to the lowest common denominator of science consumer--and 
> everybody "knows" water is simple. Well, water isn't simple. And pretending 
> it is simple is a major obstacle to progress in many disciplines, like 
> meteorology. 
> 
> Exposing this pretense is a theme in the first chapter of my next book.   
> 
> Here is the first paragraph: 
> 
> Bill -- Chapter One: Air Brakes (Plasma [1 of 5]) 
> ht(remove this)tp://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060 
> 
> Are you the kind of person that suspects an underlying complexity to our 
> reality that nobody quite understands so everybody just pretends to 
> understand and tacitly agrees to not call attention to each others 
> pretenses? Are you the kind of person that suspects that different academic 
> factions have colluded to sow confusion so that their collective failure to 
> understand this underlying complexity of our reality is not revealed to the 
> public? Are you the kind of person that believes the public can so easily be 
> led astray by pretentious, sciencey sounding rhetoric that diverts attention 
> away from the wider revelation of this poorly understood underlying 
> complexity of our reality? Me neither. So I was just as perplexed as anybody 
> would be when I first encountered the the zeroing out of polarity with with 
> fully coordinated (symmetric) hydrogen bonding between H2O molecules (as in 
> liquid water). 
> 
> As you can imagine, I have no interests in discussing any of this here. Trying 
> to explain anything about the details of H2O to someone who refuses to 
> understand basic concepts like the boiling temperature of H2O is as pointless 
> as trying to teach evolution to a dog. 
> 
> I think you all have done about as good a job as possible to demonstrate the 
> validity of meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me 
> to present an aggregation of the best evidence to support the current 
> paradigm of meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to this 
> thread. Because here's the thing: meteorologists won't do what you did.  
> They know it's futile.  They know that any attempt to demonstrate the 
> validity of their vague model will only expose it as absurdly flawed. 
> 
> I also think you've done as good a job as possible to dispute my 
> theoretical thinking. Of course (once again) you are extremely scattered 
> and desperate. But that's to be expected from church ladies. Intelligent 
> people will see through that and realize that you actually made some 
> effort.  Again, and for the same reasons, this is not something 
> meteorologists would ever do. 
> 
> Thank you for your participation.
> 
> Maybe I will mention y'all in my Nobel Prize acceptance speech.
> 
> Peace. Out.
> 
> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#712303

On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 11:56:30 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> In the past the main obstacle to scientific progress was that many found 
> the narrative associated with religion/bible to be convincing. Now the 
> "church ladies" use science itself as the narrative that justifies their 
> deliberate refusal to apply the scientific method.   
> 
> None of you "skeptics" are genuine skeptics. You are believers. You are 
> church ladies. A church lady is somebody who defends scripture but doesn't 
> really understand it. None of you pretenders has an argument or even 
> bothers to think about any of this. Anybody can pretend to understand. 
> It takes no skill, no intelligence, and it involves no work. 
> 
> One of the myths of human evolution is that the process produced a rational 
> end product. This is not true. Humans are not rational but can best be 
> described as hyper-pseudo-rational. This means that humans believe they are 
> rational but are oriented to intellectually create their own pseudo-reality. 
> (And the prevailing pseodo-reality can often become incorporated into a 
> culture's social contract.) This is the reason intelligent people 
> unavoidably find ourselves at odds with science-based fantasy. Human hyper-
> pseudo-rationalism is the result of millions of years of communal selection. 
> It's here to stay.
> 
> Church ladies wrap themselves in their self-righteous belief that they 
> know the truth and, therefore, they don't have to consider contradictory 
> evidence. They perceive their own cognitive dissonance as evidence that 
> their opponents argument is wrong and then desperately start looking for 
> anything that will re-establish their delicate sense of certainty. 
> 
> There is an inexhaustible supply of brain-dead church ladies, eager to 
> pretend to understand all things conventional.  
> 
> Meteorology's storm theory is a hold-over from the nineteenth century when 
> people were generally ignorant and believed plainly stupid things, like 
> the notion that a pot on a stove was a good analogy for storms. And/or 
> they believed the plainly dumb notion that H2O magically turned gaseous 
> (in the atmosphere) making moist air lighter than dry air. And/or they 
> believed that dry air above had magical structural abilities that produced 
> a downward force that trapped convection (this involves meteorology's 
> dishonest argument to explain why convection doesn't always happen). 
> And/or they believed H2O's latent heat magically caused the gusty winds 
> of storms. Church ladies are so gullible and so eager to believe that it 
> was not even necessary for meteorologists to conceal the blatant dishonesty 
> of these suppositions.
> 
> Much of science has been dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common 
> denominator. Unscrupulous, pretend scientists employ the technigues of 
> consensus (politics, propaganda) to dominate scientific discourse.  It's 
> easy to pretend like you have a deep scientific understanding of a 
> scientific subject if you just go along with what everybody else believes. 
> It takes no talent to agree. It takes no intelligence to pretend to 
> understand. And it takes no effort to lie and obfuscate in order to 
> appeal to what people already want to believe. 
> 
> With science it is really easy to be seduced into believing you understand 
> when actually you just believe.  For example, you believe that cold steam 
> is in earth's atmosphere. You believe this despite the fact that nobody 
> has ever detected it. And so, you have no empirical reason to believe it 
> exists. You believe it, therefore, because a lot of other people believe 
> it. This is the twisted logic of group think. And the multitude of 
> brain-dead believers, like yourselves, are the reason it works. 
> 
> In other words, much of science lies about water because all of science 
> appeals to the lowest common denominator of science consumer--and 
> everybody "knows" water is simple. Well, water isn't simple. And pretending 
> it is simple is a major obstacle to progress in many disciplines, like 
> meteorology. 
> 
> Exposing this pretense is a theme in the first chapter of my next book.   
> 
> Here is the first paragraph: 
> 
> Bill -- Chapter One: Air Brakes (Plasma [1 of 5]) 
> ht(remove this)tp://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060 
> 
> Are you the kind of person that suspects an underlying complexity to our 
> reality that nobody quite understands so everybody just pretends to 
> understand and tacitly agrees to not call attention to each others 
> pretenses? Are you the kind of person that suspects that different academic 
> factions have colluded to sow confusion so that their collective failure to 
> understand this underlying complexity of our reality is not revealed to the 
> public? Are you the kind of person that believes the public can so easily be 
> led astray by pretentious, sciencey sounding rhetoric that diverts attention 
> away from the wider revelation of this poorly understood underlying 
> complexity of our reality? Me neither. So I was just as perplexed as anybody 
> would be when I first encountered the the zeroing out of polarity with with 
> fully coordinated (symmetric) hydrogen bonding between H2O molecules (as in 
> liquid water). 
> 
> As you can imagine, I have no interests in discussing any of this here. Trying 
> to explain anything about the details of H2O to someone who refuses to 
> understand basic concepts like the boiling temperature of H2O is as pointless 
> as trying to teach evolution to a dog. 
> 
> I think you all have done about as good a job as possible to demonstrate the 
> validity of meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me 
> to present an aggregation of the best evidence to support the current 
> paradigm of meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to this 
> thread. Because here's the thing: meteorologists won't do what you did.  
> They know it's futile.  They know that any attempt to demonstrate the 
> validity of their vague model will only expose it as absurdly flawed. 
> 
> I also think you've done as good a job as possible to dispute my 
> theoretical thinking. Of course (once again) you are extremely scattered 
> and desperate. But that's to be expected from church ladies. Intelligent 
> people will see through that and realize that you actually made some 
> effort.  Again, and for the same reasons, this is not something 
> meteorologists would ever do. 
> 
> Thank you for your participation.
> 
> Maybe I will mention y'all in my Nobel Prize acceptance speech.
> 
> Peace. Out.
> 
> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web