Dee FF wrote:
Racket wrote:
Anyone remember DFF? So many great emojis
DFF is jamin. He often posted under that name when drunk.
I sure do miss DFF. Although not possessing anything of substance, his posts provided lots of comic relief.
Dee FF wrote:
Racket wrote:
Anyone remember DFF? So many great emojis
DFF is jamin. He often posted under that name when drunk.
I sure do miss DFF. Although not possessing anything of substance, his posts provided lots of comic relief.
foo wrote:
Dee FF wrote:
DFF is jamin. He often posted under that name when drunk.
I sure do miss DFF. Although not possessing anything of substance, his posts provided lots of comic relief.
Was it "Drink, F*ck, Fight"? It seems like an odd schedule for a night out. After he scored he would return to the bar to kick some a** or did beat up that night's female companion?
foo wrote:
Dee FF wrote:
DFF is jamin. He often posted under that name when drunk.
I sure do miss DFF. Although not possessing anything of substance, his posts provided lots of comic relief.
Kinda like Flagpole's latest alias - jesseriley.
Racket wrote:
Urine Idiot 2 wrote:
Look, idiot, everyone on this thread has always known that "dems-lose-again" is jamin. Well, everybody but you, apparently.
Try not to be so clueless. It is embarrassing to witness.
My vote is on Sally Vix actually being Hardloper because they both have the same pseudo-intellectual style but my real dark horse pick is wejo. It's definitely not rojo because rojo isn't smart enough to keep the ruse up for this long. He would have slipped and posted under his own name by now or something.
Anyone remember DFF? So many great emojis
I am not Hardloper. I am not rojo. I am not "dems-lose-again." I told you who I post as - myself, Fatty R. Belt ARbuckle and Polly Plumper but the latter two I rarely use. My engagements here are sincere. You guys drive me crazy at times but I don't come masquerading as some other people or personas.
Racket wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
All scientific discoveries build upon scientific consensus. That's the way science works.
Einstein could never have conceived his theories if there were no consensus on the properties of matter, light, natural processes, etc. In fact, Einstein did not actually throw away the scientific consensus on Newtonian physics. Rather, he was able to see Newton's work in a different way and improve our understanding of physical relationships and the nature of time.
And because of scientific consensus, we still study Newtonian physics and acknowledge that its principles still hold in most ordinary circumstances. Otherwise, our bridges would fall down.
For climate change, the scientific consensus is that current global warming is caused primarily by man-made emission of greenhouse gasses. If we do not drastically cut emissions in the next ten years then we are sentencing our children and grandchildren to conditions that will be increasingly unlivable. There is even a statistically significant chance that mankind could be extinct by the end of this century.
This is conflating so many different ideas that it's hard to know where to start and it's not very clear what your point is.
2+2 doesn't equal 4 because everyone at the Committee for Rules of Addition voted yea. Science does not equal consensus and the whole idea of "scientific consensus" is basically a buzzword used by people who want to promote an agenda (usually a political one). Furthermore, consensus for a lot of things change over time.
Consensus is reached by replication and reproducible results, scholarly debate, and peer review. You're basically putting the cart before the horse and appeal to consensus is (ironically) very anti-science.
Nice post, Racket!
Conundrum wrote:
Racket wrote:
Wrong. Scientific consensus is not a tool that a scientist uses, and the progress of science does not depend on it unless you want to argue about direction of research and funding and trendy topics to study throughout the ages. Scientists rely on reproducibility, hypothesis testing, and all the other stuff I mentioned. No one is creating new "science" from consensus, which again, is really on a word for all you non-scientists to talk about the goings on of actual scientists.
But wait! There's more! First of all, wow I got bored way faster than I thought I would when I started typing this. Second, the overall quality of peer reviewed papers and all that has absolutely plummeted so to be honest there probably is a lot of people agreeing with outcomes just because and honestly I'm way less interested in continuing on about this than I thought now
Scientists do work from the consensus of other scientist who have examined the validity and reproducing of previous studies and findings. The don't reexamine every scientific finding from the past. They work from the consensus of scientists who have done this.
They do trust consensus. (Of course they can challenge it if they have evidrnce)
You guys discussing consensus in science are way-off base. Please read this. I posted previously.
What is the role of consensus in science? The answer is simple: It has no role whatsoever. ‘Consensus’ is neither part of the scientific method nor a goal in science. It is a tool used by non-scientists searching for trends in the thinking among scientists. When used as a tool for understanding, it can be harmless. But when it's used to manufacture a false climate of authority, it can be very harmful indeed.
The myth that science seeks to achieve a consensus has been debunked many times. But activists continually revive it. One article at Ars Technica, a computer news site that sometimes talks about global warming, is typical. They point out that we have agreed-upon criteria for determining statistical significance. Once a finding has accumulated enough supporting evidence, they claim, it is considered ‘settled,’ and need not be re-investigated.
This is not true. No scientist uses the phrase ‘settled science’ to support their conclusions. If they did, their papers would be ignored and they'd be laughed off the podium. Consensus implies cognitive closure, which is sternly resisted in science.
Yes, we use standards and conventions, just like ordinary mortal humans. When we write in English, we use the same rules of syntax. We use the same type of mathematics, the same counting system, and the same definition of the gram. In a given country, we all agree to drive on the same side of the road. One might reasonably call this a consensus. But it would be sloppy reasoning—a form of equivocation—to imply that any of this is the method by which science builds knowledge. Either the activists are unfamiliar with how science works, or they are making a basic error of logic, or they are being disingenuous.
Consensus is a social phenomenon, not a part of science. Scientists are human, and they're susceptible to human weakness, and the urge to conform is one of them. When they succumb to it, science suffers.
One example is the question of whether HIV is the causal agent of AIDS. As a practical matter, if introducing a virus into a patient causes the disease and eliminating the virus cures it, that is good enough for most scientists to consider the subject no longer worth studying. Science tries to solve problems, and if the problem goes away, scientists turn to something else that is more pressing and interesting.
A better example is stomach ulcers. Most scientists considered ulcers to be uninteresting. They thought, as many people did, that they were caused by stress. That idea turned out to be incorrect, and the two people who discovered it received a well-deserved Nobel prize.
But this most emphatically does not mean that consensus played any role, either before the discovery or afterward. Even if the opinions of physicians and scientists had been measured, and some universally agreed threshold, say 50% + 1, or maybe 95%, of their opinions had been reached, it still would have no bearing on whether the stress theory was true. If consensus was a meaningful criterion, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall would not have investigated the bacteria hypothesis, and they might never have discovered the true cause.
Sally, you are always making accusations about Biden and Hunter, but here is an opinion from someone with direct knowledge of the situation:
I'm sure Trump was told the same thing, whether he believed what he wanted to believe or just wanted an annoucement of an investigation is not yet known.
Urine Idiot 2 wrote:
Conundrum wrote:
Possibly, but I am feeling pretty confident that the "dems-lose-again" troll is Sally.
Rojo is posting here, so he could Sally too.
Look, idiot, everyone on this thread has always known that "dems-lose-again" is jamin. Well, everybody but you, apparently.
Try not to be so clueless. It is embarrassing to witness.
I am seriously offended that you are thinking rojo might be me. He can barely write a sentence. I had a 3.99 GPA. If you can't tell the difference between the two of us then you have a screw lose (I did that purposely to make you think I MIGHT be rojo! Haha).
Bolton is MIA. Word is he wants a better deal, but from who?
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Sally, you are always making accusations about Biden and Hunter, but here is an opinion from someone with direct knowledge of the situation:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-backed-allegations-biden-credible-testified-us-official/story%3fid=66807238I'm sure Trump was told the same thing, whether he believed what he wanted to believe or just wanted an annoucement of an investigation is not yet known.
I will certainly read that. Thanks.
Bodines wrote:
foo wrote:
I sure do miss DFF. Although not possessing anything of substance, his posts provided lots of comic relief.
Kinda like Flagpole's latest alias - jesseriley.
I don't think Flagpole is Jesse. Jesse seems to always be here and sometimes his posts are fairly funny. Flagpole's posts are pathetic - either claiming that got the 2016 election right, or the Mueller is here crap, or his self-love and how great he is, and how he has become increasingly hostile to those on the right. He is a very angry man now.
jesseriley wrote:
Bolton is MIA. Word is he wants a better deal, but from who?
Jesse - now should that be "from who" or "from whom?" Please explain your answer.
When Sally was asked about Trump giving his a form his brother works for a $33M contract Sally's comments (made 1-2 days ago) was limited to something on the lines of: "that is worrisome." And that was the end of her "concern."
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Sally, you are always making accusations about Biden and Hunter, but here is an opinion from someone with direct knowledge of the situation:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-backed-allegations-biden-credible-testified-us-official/story%3fid=66807238I'm sure Trump was told the same thing, whether he believed what he wanted to believe or just wanted an annoucement of an investigation is not yet known.
Sally Vix wrote:
should that be "from who" or "from whom?"
Pssst. . . . your TxRunnerGurl roots are showing.
Unfortunate wrote:
When Sally was asked about Trump giving his a form his brother works for a $33M contract Sally's comments (made 1-2 days ago) was limited to something on the lines of: "that is worrisome." And that was the end of her "concern."
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Sally, you are always making accusations about Biden and Hunter, but here is an opinion from someone with direct knowledge of the situation:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-backed-allegations-biden-credible-testified-us-official/story%3fid=66807238I'm sure Trump was told the same thing, whether he believed what he wanted to believe or just wanted an annoucement of an investigation is not yet known.
I don't have the means or the inclination to launch a full-blown investigation into this. You guys want to ignore the extortion of Joe Biden so why should I care about this? I actually do care more about this than you guys and gals do about Biden and Ukraine. But I have other things to do.
Unfortunate wrote:
When Sally was asked about Trump giving his a form his brother works for a $33M contract Sally's comments (made 1-2 days ago) was limited to something on the lines of: "that is worrisome." And that was the end of her "concern."
Right, like the article he said he will read later, or any credible anti-trump comment which he will consider later.. better to just brush off anything that doesn't fit with his adoration for agent orange. Sally is a biased individual with a very odd trolling strategy. Sally is basically trying to troll to disguise his stupidity from himself... the trolling part is like a pretend distraction. That or he graduated with a 3.99 from Trump U and is indeed 100% stupid as some have indicated.
Hey Sally, add this to your reading list...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/trump-settlement-trump-foundation-new-york/index.htmlTrollminator wrote:
Unfortunate wrote:
When Sally was asked about Trump giving his a form his brother works for a $33M contract Sally's comments (made 1-2 days ago) was limited to something on the lines of: "that is worrisome." And that was the end of her "concern."
Right, like the article he said he will read later, or any credible anti-trump comment which he will consider later.. better to just brush off anything that doesn't fit with his adoration for agent orange. Sally is a biased individual with a very odd trolling strategy. Sally is basically trying to troll to disguise his stupidity from himself... the trolling part is like a pretend distraction. That or he graduated with a 3.99 from Trump U and is indeed 100% stupid as some have indicated.
Hey Sally, add this to your reading list...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/trump-settlement-trump-foundation-new-york/index.html
Sally was graduated (past passive - like you would ever know what that means) Beta Gamma Sigma with a 3.99 GPA from a top 40 university in the WORLD. And exactly how did you do in school? Oh, you went to Plumber's school? I am sure your parents appreciate how you can put tubing together and unclog a commode. They must be very proud of you. During Christmas when Uncle Fatty comes to visit you can clean up the mess he makes in the bathroom. Well done!
How do you tzees feel about witnesses just disregarding legal order to go in for hearings? Do you just say well it's a sham impeachment so it's ok to not follow the rules? Do you all just not show up for jury duty or for any other court date because you think you were being targeted by the system? I don't get the justification.
Trollminator wrote:
Unfortunate wrote:
When Sally was asked about Trump giving his a form his brother works for a $33M contract Sally's comments (made 1-2 days ago) was limited to something on the lines of: "that is worrisome." And that was the end of her "concern."
Right, like the article he said he will read later, or any credible anti-trump comment which he will consider later.. better to just brush off anything that doesn't fit with his adoration for agent orange. Sally is a biased individual with a very odd trolling strategy. Sally is basically trying to troll to disguise his stupidity from himself... the trolling part is like a pretend distraction. That or he graduated with a 3.99 from Trump U and is indeed 100% stupid as some have indicated.
Hey Sally, add this to your reading list...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/trump-settlement-trump-foundation-new-york/index.html
how the heck can anyone support trump? Here is yet another example of how he is a tax cheat. You want a lifetime tax cheat to be your president?
For sh/t's sake wake up, trumpbros.
Sally Vix wrote:
Sally was graduated (past passive - like you would ever know what that means) Beta Gamma Sigma with a 3.99 GPA from a top 40 university in the WORLD. And exactly how did you do in school? Oh, you went to Plumber's school? I am sure your parents appreciate how you can put tubing together and unclog a commode. They must be very proud of you. During Christmas when Uncle Fatty comes to visit you can clean up the mess he makes in the bathroom. Well done!
Wow, pretty triggered I see. As has been said before, anyone who feels the need to announce their GPA on an anonymous chat, specially when not asked, is suffering from some serious insecurity issues. Look we are already convinced you have a panda-level IQ, you've ensured that through your most intelligent posts.