Fuckwit David Harrison and the Dunning-Kruger effect
George Plimpton
literally *everyone* else - being "mentally handicapped" and "below"
Fuckwit. Hardly a day goes by that Fuckwit doesn't blabber about this.
It's crap. Fuckwit is the one who is far below average in mental
ability. He has very little education - no more than American high
school, if that, and it's about 35 or 40 years ago - and he clearly does
not have better than average IQ.
Fuckwit clearly suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled
people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but
their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to
recognize their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from
*illusory superiority*, rating their ability as above average, much
higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate
their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. Actual
competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may
falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As
Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent
stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of
the highly competent stems from an error about others."
[emphasis added]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Fuckwit is a *classic* example of this (so is my younger brother.)
Fuckwit is so crushingly stupid and incompetent that he readily suffers
from the delusion that he's smart and competent.
Dutch
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:w_ednYOY5oCtp93T...@giganews.com...
Larry Forti is another.
>
George Plimpton
Oh, absolutely right. That clown can't even come close to sounding
"scientific" about his food dogma.
dh
>Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) repeatedly talks about everyone else -
>literally *everyone* else - being "mentally handicapped" and "below"
>Fuckwit.
That's a lie Goo. Are you too stupid to comprehend what I actually do talk
about, or are you dishonestly pretending to be too stupid? All you've done
Goober is to create that question.
Since you're the one trying to create the impression, do you want people to
believe you're actually too stupid to comprehend what I really do point out
Goob? If not, prove it by saying what it actually is. Go:
George Plimpton
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:33:46 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) repeatedly talks about everyone else -
>> literally *everyone* else - being "mentally handicapped" and "below"
>> Fuckwit.
>
> That's a lie
No, it isn't.
It's that you people are very much INFERIOR to the average person
Goob, and even if I was way below average in that respect you
people are still WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY below me, and even way below
where I was when I was in grade school.
Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
That you who are below me are in an even worse position than I am
is one point. If I'm as stupid as Goo claims, yet I was farther
along than you are now by the time I was in 6th grade...
Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
MOST people can comprehend the difference between lives of positive
and negative value. We were doing it in grade school, meaning that
people who can not do it are below the average 6th grade child.
Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/01/11
I pointed out another significant thing that your mental
restrictions prevent you from being able to do.
Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 07/25/11
The concept is likely beyond your mental ability.
Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 07/27/11
In fact I've figure [sic] something out that's very obviously
beyond the mental ability of the eliminationist mind to appreciate
Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
...just to prevent mentally handicapped people from moving on to a
higher position which their mental handicap makes if very difficult
for them to achieve even without you working to hold them back
Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
You [Rupert] have severe mental limitations [note: Fuckwit is
blabbering here about Rupert's analytical ability, not his psychosis]
Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
Fuckwit, you blabber about your "superior" mental ability and perception
all the time. It's a joke - you are mentally below *everyone* else in
this newsgroup except for Douchebag Ron Hamilton.
> Since you're the one trying to create the impression,
You, Fuckwit, are the one trying to <chortle> "create the impression"
that you are mentally and cognitively superior to everyone else.
You are severely afflicted by an overestimation of your mental ability,
Fuckwit. You are *incompetent*, and you incompetence leads you
erroneously to think you are super-competent. It's hilarious.
Rupert
So, you think I'm suffering from a psychosis at the moment?
dh
>On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:00:53 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:33:46 -0700, Goo lied:
>>
>>>Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) repeatedly talks about everyone else -
>>>literally *everyone* else - being "mentally handicapped" and "below"
>>>Fuckwit.
>>
>> That's a lie Goo. Are you too stupid to comprehend what I actually do talk
>>about, or are you dishonestly pretending to be too stupid? All you've done
>>Goober is to create that question.
>
>No, it isn't.
That's what you've done Goo. You often leave people wondering how much of
your lies you're stupid enough to believe, and how much you know you're lying
about Goob.
. . .
>you people are very much INFERIOR to the average person
. . .
>MOST people can comprehend the difference between lives of positive
>and negative value.
. . .
>your mental restrictions prevent you from being able to
. . .
>beyond the mental ability of the eliminationist mind to appreciate
. . .
>their mental handicap makes if very difficult for them to achieve
>even without you working to hold them back
. . .
>You [Rupert] have severe mental limitations
. . .
>Fuckwit, you blabber about your "superior" mental ability
I point out the limitations of the eliminationist mind Goober, and that
eliminationists are BELOW AVERAGE. They are necessarily below average Goob.
Anyone who can't appreciate the distinction between lives of positive and
negative value for livestock is below average Goo, even if you want to think
that limitation makes them somehow superior.
. . .
>You are severely afflicted by an overestimation of your mental ability
Goober I KNOW I can appreciate when AW successfully results in lives of
positive value for livestock, and I KNOW that's superior to not being able to.
MOST people can Goo, so you who can not are way below average. You shouldn't cry
to see it pointed out Goo, since in the past it seemed that you were proud of
your limitation. Have you finally become ashamed of it Goo, as you should have
been the entire time?
George Plimpton
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 11:27:53 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison, comically stupid lying cracKKKer, lied:
>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:33:46 -0700, George Plimpton lied:
>>>
>>>> Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) repeatedly talks about everyone else -
>>>> literally *everyone* else - being "mentally handicapped" and "below"
>>>> Fuckwit.
>>>
>>> That's a lie
>>
>>
>> It's that you people are very much INFERIOR to the average person
>> Goob, and even if I was way below average in that respect you
>> people are still WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY below me, and even way below
>> where I was when I was in grade school.
>>
>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
>>
>>
>> That you who are below me are in an even worse position than I am
>> is one point. If I'm as stupid as Goo claims, yet I was farther
>> along than you are now by the time I was in 6th grade...
>>
>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
>>
>>
>> people who can not do it are below the average 6th grade child.
>>
>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/01/11
>>
>>
>> I pointed out another significant thing that your mental
>> restrictions prevent you from being able to do.
>>
>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 07/25/11
>>
>>
>> The concept is likely beyond your mental ability.
>>
>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 07/27/11
>>
>>
>> In fact I've figure [sic] something out that's very obviously
>>
>>
>>
>> ...just to prevent mentally handicapped people from moving on to a
>> for them to achieve even without you working to hold them back
>>
>>
>>
>> blabbering here about Rupert's analytical ability, not his psychosis]
>>
>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
>>
>>
>> Fuckwit, you blabber about your "superior" mental ability and perception
>> all the time. It's a joke - you are mentally below *everyone* else in
>> this newsgroup except for Douchebag Ron Hamilton.
>
Nope - it's what you, an *UNEDUCATED*, *UNCOMPREHENDING* drunken
cracKKKer are always doing.
>
> I point out the
You point out nothing.
>> You are severely afflicted by an overestimation of your mental
>> ability, Fuckwit. You are *incompetent*, and you incompetence
>> leads you erroneously to think you are super-competent. It's hilarious.
>
> Goober I KNOW I can appreciate when AW successfully results
Fuckwit: you are not above anyone, and you appreciate nothing about
"AW" <chortle> - you don't care about it in the least, as I have shown.
Stupid and incompetent, Fuckwit - that's you. Too stupid to realize you
are incompetent, and so utterly incompetent you are wrongly led to think
you're smart.
You're a stupid, uneducated, nonsensical cracKKKer fool, Fuckwit - not
in dispute.
George Plimpton
It just doesn't get any more absurd than that.
Rupert
> <chortle>
>
> It just doesn't get any more absurd than that.
Why didn't you answer my question, Ball? Is it because you are aware
that it is extremely stupid to claim that I am having a psychosis at
the moment?
George Plimpton
<snicker>
Rupert
What's the joke?
dh
wrote:
>On Aug 13, 1:45�am, Goo wrote:
>> <chortle>
>>
>> It just doesn't get any more absurd than that.
>
>Why didn't you answer my question, Ball? Is it because you are aware
>that it is extremely stupid to claim that I am having a psychosis at
>the moment?
How could Goo have any clue about whether you are or not?
This stupid Goober doesn't even know how good sci fi is similar to
theoretical physics. Goo's idea of what good sci fi is, is probably something
like Lord of the Rings which isn't sci fi at all. It's a pretty safe bet that
Goob can't distinguish between sci fi and fantasy, and we KNOW he can't
distinguish between which sci fi is and is not similar to theoretical physics.
His childlike reaction to me pointing out that some is similar, revealed his
ignorance about the fact as clearly as a Goober can reveal anything.
dh
wrote:
>On Aug 14, 12:26 am, Goo wrote:
>> On 8/13/2011 3:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> > On Aug 13, 1:45 am, Goo wrote:
>> >> <chortle>
>>
>> >> It just doesn't get any more absurd than that.
>>
>> > Why didn't you answer my question, Ball? Is it because you are aware
>> > that it is extremely stupid to claim that I am having a psychosis at
>> > the moment?
>>
>> <snicker>
>
>What's the joke?
He's tweaking you. Goo has made you his boy even though you may not want to
be. He has control over you now. I warned you not to respect the Goober, but you
fell in love because he said what you like to hear and now you're his.
dh
>On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:32:59 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 11:27:53 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:00:53 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:33:46 -0700, Goo lied:
>>>>
>>>>>Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) repeatedly talks about everyone else -
>>>>>literally *everyone* else - being "mentally handicapped" and "below"
>>>>>Fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie Goo. Are you too stupid to comprehend what I actually do talk
>>>>about, or are you dishonestly pretending to be too stupid? All you've done
>>>>Goober is to create that question.
>>>
>>>No, it isn't.
>>
>> That's what you've done Goo. You often leave people wondering how much of
>>your lies you're stupid enough to believe, and how much you know you're lying
>>about Goob.
>
>Nope
Yes Goo. Ron can confirm that you frequently make a person wonder whether
you're really stupid enough to believe a claim you make, or if you're not really
that stupid but are just hoping you can dishonestly fool someone else into
believing it. For me Goob, it seems that you just might believe your own stupid
dishonesty a surprisingly high percentage of the time, but certainly not all the
time. Even you're not stupid enough to believe ALL of your lies, Goo.
>>. . .
>>>you people are very much INFERIOR to the average person
>
> - it's what you, an *UNEDUCATED*
Goober anyone who can appreciate decent lives for livestock is NECESSARILY
superior in that regard to people like eliminationists who can not.
>>. . .
>>>MOST people can comprehend the difference between lives of positive
>>>and negative value.
>>. . .
>>>your mental restrictions prevent you from being able to
>>. . .
>>>beyond the mental ability of the eliminationist mind to appreciate
>
>*UNCOMPREHENDING*
LOL! Goo, we can't even pretend that you eliminationists can comprehend the
significance of the difference at all, much less appreciate it in the least. It
makes you NECESSARILY INFERIOR in that regard to anyone who can. You people are
at the bottom Goo. There's no place lower to go than to OPPOSE consideration,
but since you've spent over a decade opposing appreciation for when AW
successfully provides lives of positive value, you have been at that lower level
for a dozen years.
>>. . .
>>>their mental handicap makes if very difficult for them to achieve
>>>even without you working to hold them back
>>. . .
>>>You [Rupert] have severe mental limitations
>>. . .
>>>Fuckwit, you blabber about your "superior" mental ability
>>
>> I point out the limitations of the eliminationist mind Goober, and that
>>eliminationists are BELOW AVERAGE. They are necessarily below average Goob.
>>Anyone who can't appreciate the distinction between lives of positive and
>>negative value for livestock is below average Goo, even if you want to think
>>that limitation makes them somehow superior.
>>. . .
>>>You are severely afflicted by an overestimation of your mental ability
>>
>> Goober I KNOW I can appreciate when AW successfully results in lives of
>>positive value for livestock, and I KNOW that's superior to not being able to.
>>MOST people can Goo, so you who can not are way below average. You shouldn't cry
>>to see it pointed out Goo, since in the past it seemed that you were proud of
>>your limitation.
>
>Fuckwit: you are not above anyone
Goober ANYONE who encourages appreciation for lives of positive value is
NECESSARILY above a person who opposes it, making me above you. Duh Goo. And IF
you really were in favor of AW you would be able to comprehend why. The fact
that you can't is something else that reveals you Goob.
George Plimpton
> George doesn't even know how good sci fi is similar to
> theoretical physics.
1. It isn't similar in any way.
2. You have *ZERO* familiarity with physics, so you have no
fucking clue what might be similar to it. You have never
so much as touched a physics textbook.
George Plimpton
> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 14, 12:26 am, Goo wrote:
>>> On 8/13/2011 3:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 13, 1:45 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>> <chortle>
>>>
>>>>> It just doesn't get any more absurd than that.
>>>
>>>> Why didn't you answer my question, Ball? Is it because you are aware
>>>> that it is extremely stupid to claim that I am having a psychosis at
>>>> the moment?
>>>
>>> <snicker>
>>
>> What's the joke?
>
> He's tweaking you. Goo has made you his boy even though you may not want to
> be. He has control over you now.
Not nearly as much control as I have over you, Fuckwit.
George Plimpton
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 08:43:27 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon cracKKKer, lied:
>>
>>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 11:27:53 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon cracKKKer, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:33:46 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) repeatedly talks about everyone else -
>>>>>> literally *everyone* else - being "mentally handicapped" and "below"
>>>>>> Fuckwit.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a lie
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> It's that you people are very much INFERIOR to the average person
>>>> Goob, and even if I was way below average in that respect you
>>>> people are still WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY below me, and even way below
>>>> where I was when I was in grade school.
>>>>
>>>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That you who are below me are in an even worse position than I am
>>>> is one point. If I'm as stupid as Goo claims, yet I was farther
>>>> along than you are now by the time I was in 6th grade...
>>>>
>>>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> MOST people can comprehend the difference between lives of positive
>>>> and negative value. We were doing it in grade school, meaning that
>>>> people who can not do it are below the average 6th grade child.
>>>>
>>>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/01/11
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I pointed out another significant thing that your mental
>>>> restrictions prevent you from being able to do.
>>>>
>>>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 07/25/11
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The concept is likely beyond your mental ability.
>>>>
>>>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 07/27/11
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In fact I've figure [sic] something out that's very obviously
>>>> beyond the mental ability of the eliminationist mind to appreciate
>>>>
>>>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...just to prevent mentally handicapped people from moving on to a
>>>> higher position which their mental handicap makes if very difficult
>>>> for them to achieve even without you working to hold them back
>>>>
>>>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You [Rupert] have severe mental limitations [note: Fuckwit is
>>>> blabbering here about Rupert's analytical ability, not his psychosis]
>>>>
>>>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fuckwit, you blabber about your "superior" mental ability and perception
>>>> all the time. It's a joke - you are mentally below *everyone* else in
>>>> this newsgroup except for Douchebag Ron Hamilton.
>>>
>>> That's what you've done
>>
>> Nope - it's what you, an *UNEDUCATED*, *UNCOMPREHENDING* drunken cracKKKer are always doing.
>
> Yes
Yes.
>
> anyone who can appreciate decent lives for livestock
Meaningless blabber.
>> *UNCOMPREHENDING*
>
> we can't even pretend that you eliminationists can comprehend the
> significance of the difference at all
Meaningless gibberish.
>>> Goober I KNOW I can appreciate when AW successfully results
>>
>> Fuckwit: you are not above anyone, and you appreciate nothing about "AW" <chortle> - you don't care about it in the least, as I have shown.
>
> ANYONE who encourages appreciation for lives of positive value
Meaningless cracker gibberish.
dh
>On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:52:45 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 03:09:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 13, 1:45 am, Goo wrote:
>>>> <chortle>
>>>>
>>>> It just doesn't get any more absurd than that.
>>>
>>>Why didn't you answer my question, ...[Goo]? Is it because you are aware
>>>that it is extremely stupid to claim that I am having a psychosis at
>>>the moment?
>>
>> How could Goo have any clue about whether you are or not?
>>
>> This stupid Goober doesn't even know how good sci fi is similar to
>>theoretical physics.
>
>1. It isn't similar in any way.
LOL! You're wrong, while at the same time proving me correct.
>>Goo's idea of what good sci fi is, is probably something
>>like Lord of the Rings which isn't sci fi at all. It's a pretty safe bet that
>>Goob can't distinguish between sci fi and fantasy, and we KNOW he can't
>>distinguish between which sci fi is and is not similar to theoretical physics.
>
>2. You have *ZERO* familiarity with physics, so you have no
> fucking clue what might be similar to it.
All sci fi refers to and is about physics Goo. You didn't know that.
Everything else is related to physics Goober. All science is related to physics.
You can't comprehend how Goob but most people can. You won't get this either
Goo, but here's something else for you to be confused about:
"There are only two kinds of science: physics and butterfly collecting." - Lord
Ernest Rutherford
dh
>On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:52:51 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 14:35:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 14, 12:26 am, Goo wrote:
>>>> On 8/13/2011 3:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Aug 13, 1:45 am, Goo wrote:
>>>> >> <chortle>
>>>>
>>>> >> It just doesn't get any more absurd than that.
>>>>
>>>> > Why didn't you answer my question, Ball? Is it because you are aware
>>>> > that it is extremely stupid to claim that I am having a psychosis at
>>>> > the moment?
>>>>
>>>> <snicker>
>>>
>>>What's the joke?
>>
>> He's tweaking you. Goo has made you his boy even though you may not want to
>>be. He has control over you now. I warned you not to respect the Goober, but you
>>fell in love because he said what you like to hear and now you're his.
>
>Not nearly as much control as I have over you, Fuckwit.
So far all you've done is show what a remarkably dishonest person you are
Goober. Other people may not know, but I know when you're lying about me Goo.
What you hate most about me is that I see through your stupid STUPID bullshit
Goob. You are an eliminationist, not really even pretending to be opposed to it.
The fact that you can't see how obvious it is, as your brothers can't, is
another thing that reveals you as an eliminationist. But, Goober, if you want to
control me all you have to do is explain how anti-consideration is ethically
superior to having appreciation for lives of positive value. Amusingly, when I
started posting years ago I was afraid people might be able to do that, and I'd
end up moving to the eliminationist position. LOL...that damn sure never came
close to happening though Goo because no one has even been able to attempt to
explain how anti-consideration could be ethically supreme, or even superior
to...anything...
dh
>On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:53:56 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 08:43:27 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:32:59 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 11:27:53 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:00:53 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:33:46 -0700, Goo lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) repeatedly talks about everyone else -
>>>>>>>literally *everyone* else - being "mentally handicapped" and "below"
>>>>>>>Fuckwit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a lie Goo. Are you too stupid to comprehend what I actually do talk
>>>>>>about, or are you dishonestly pretending to be too stupid? All you've done
>>>>>>Goober is to create that question.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> That's what you've done Goo. You often leave people wondering how much of
>>>>your lies you're stupid enough to believe, and how much you know you're lying
>>>>about Goob.
>>>
>>>Nope
>>
>> Yes Goo. Ron can confirm that you frequently make a person wonder whether
>>you're really stupid enough to believe a claim you make, or if you're not really
>>that stupid but are just hoping you can dishonestly fool someone else into
>>believing it. For me Goob, it seems that you just might believe your own stupid
>>dishonesty a surprisingly high percentage of the time, but certainly not all the
>>time. Even you're not stupid enough to believe ALL of your lies, Goo.
>>
>>>>. . .
>>>>>you people are very much INFERIOR to the average person
>>>
>>> - it's what you, an *UNEDUCATED*
>>
>> Goober anyone who can appreciate decent lives for livestock is NECESSARILY
>>superior in that regard to people like eliminationists who can not.
>>
>>>>. . .
>>>>>MOST people can comprehend the difference between lives of positive
>>>>>and negative value.
>>>>. . .
>>>>>your mental restrictions prevent you from being able to
>>>>. . .
>>>>>beyond the mental ability of the eliminationist mind to appreciate
>>>
>>>*UNCOMPREHENDING*
>>
>> LOL! Goo, we can't even pretend that you eliminationists can comprehend the
>>significance of the difference at all, much less appreciate it in the least. It
>>makes you NECESSARILY INFERIOR in that regard to anyone who can. You people are
>>at the bottom Goo. There's no place lower to go than to OPPOSE consideration,
>>but since you've spent over a decade opposing appreciation for when AW
>>successfully provides lives of positive value, you have been at that lower level
>>for a dozen years.
>>
>>>>. . .
>>>>>their mental handicap makes if very difficult for them to achieve
>>>>>even without you working to hold them back
>>>>. . .
>>>>>You [Rupert] have severe mental limitations
>>>>. . .
>>>>>Fuckwit, you blabber about your "superior" mental ability
>>>>
>>>> I point out the limitations of the eliminationist mind Goober, and that
>>>>eliminationists are BELOW AVERAGE. They are necessarily below average Goob.
>>>>Anyone who can't appreciate the distinction between lives of positive and
>>>>negative value for livestock is below average Goo, even if you want to think
>>>>that limitation makes them somehow superior.
>>>>. . .
>>>>>You are severely afflicted by an overestimation of your mental ability
>>>>
>>>> Goober I KNOW I can appreciate when AW successfully results in lives of
>>>>positive value for livestock, and I KNOW that's superior to not being able to.
>>>>MOST people can Goo, so you who can not are way below average. You shouldn't cry
>>>>to see it pointed out Goo, since in the past it seemed that you were proud of
>>>>your limitation.
>>>
>>>Fuckwit: you are not above anyone
>>
>> Goober ANYONE who encourages appreciation for lives of positive value is
>>NECESSARILY above a person who opposes it, making me above you. Duh Goo. And IF
>>you really were in favor of AW you would be able to comprehend why. The fact
>>that you can't is something else that reveals you Goob.
>
>Meaningless cracker gibberish.
LOL...you wish Goo, but the fact is that the fact does reveal you.
George Plimpton
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 16:41:08 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison, lying cracKKKer, lied:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 03:09:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert<rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 13, 1:45 am, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> <chortle>
>>>>>
>>>>> It just doesn't get any more absurd than that.
>>>>
>>>> Why didn't you answer my question, ...[Goo]? Is it because you are aware
>>>> that it is extremely stupid to claim that I am having a psychosis at
>>>> the moment?
>>>
>>> How could Goo have any clue about whether you are or not?
>>>
>>> This stupid Goober doesn't even know how good sci fi is similar to
>>> theoretical physics.
>>
>> 1. It isn't similar in any way.
>
> LOL! You're wrong,
No, I'm not wrong. They aren't similar in any way. First, you - an
ignorant, uneducated cracKKKer - wouldn't know "good" sci-fi if someone
beat you over the head with it. Second, sci-fi is just fairy tales - it
doesn't have to have any link to real science at all, and in fact seldom
does.
>>> Goo's idea of what good sci fi is, is probably something
>>> like Lord of the Rings which isn't sci fi at all. It's a pretty safe bet that
>>> Goob can't distinguish between sci fi and fantasy, and we KNOW he can't
>>> distinguish between which sci fi is and is not similar to theoretical physics.
>>
>> 2. You have *ZERO* familiarity with physics, so you have no
>> fucking clue what might be similar to it.
>
> All sci fi refers to and is about physics
No, that's false, Fuckwit. It's false two times: first, because much
of sci-fi is actually "soft" sci-fi, which is about politics and society
in the future. Second, because they just assume the physics away in
order to have magical machinery that couldn't exist in reality.
Nope - there is no connection between sci-fi, of any quality, and
"theoretical physics".
George Plimpton
>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison, lying cracKKKer, lied:
>>
>>>>> On 8/13/2011 3:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 13, 1:45 am, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>> <chortle>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It just doesn't get any more absurd than that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why didn't you answer my question, Ball? Is it because you are aware
>>>>>> that it is extremely stupid to claim that I am having a psychosis at
>>>>>> the moment?
>>>>>
>>>>> <snicker>
>>>>
>>>> What's the joke?
>>>
>>> He's tweaking you. Goo has made you his boy even though you may not want to
>>> be. He has control over you now.
>>
>
> So far all you've done is show
What I have shown is that you are a stupid uneducated cracKKKer; that
your "getting to experience life" bullshit is, well, bullshit; and that
you have *NO* appreciation for livestock animals that isn't actually
self-serving.
George Plimpton
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 16:49:22 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison, lying felonious cracKKKer, lied:
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 08:43:27 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, lying felonious cracKKKer, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 11:27:53 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, lying felonious cracKKKer, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:33:46 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) repeatedly talks about everyone else -
>>>>>>>> literally *everyone* else - being "mentally handicapped" and "below"
>>>>>>>> Fuckwit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a lie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's that you people are very much INFERIOR to the average person
>>>>>> Goob, and even if I was way below average in that respect you
>>>>>> people are still WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY below me, and even way below
>>>>>> where I was when I was in grade school.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you who are below me are in an even worse position than I am
>>>>>> is one point. If I'm as stupid as Goo claims, yet I was farther
>>>>>> along than you are now by the time I was in 6th grade...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MOST people can comprehend the difference between lives of positive
>>>>>> and negative value. We were doing it in grade school, meaning that
>>>>>> people who can not do it are below the average 6th grade child.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/01/11
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I pointed out another significant thing that your mental
>>>>>> restrictions prevent you from being able to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 07/25/11
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The concept is likely beyond your mental ability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 07/27/11
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact I've figure [sic] something out that's very obviously
>>>>>> beyond the mental ability of the eliminationist mind to appreciate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...just to prevent mentally handicapped people from moving on to a
>>>>>> higher position which their mental handicap makes if very difficult
>>>>>> for them to achieve even without you working to hold them back
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You [Rupert] have severe mental limitations [note: Fuckwit is
>>>>>> blabbering here about Rupert's analytical ability, not his psychosis]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fuckwit, you blabber about your "superior" mental ability and perception
>>>>>> all the time. It's a joke - you are mentally below *everyone* else in
>>>>>> this newsgroup except for Douchebag Ron Hamilton.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what you've done
>>>>
>>>> Nope - it's what you, an *UNEDUCATED*, *UNCOMPREHENDING* drunken cracKKKer are always doing.
>>>
>>> Yes
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>>
>>> anyone who can appreciate decent lives for livestock
>>
>>meaningless blabber
>>
>>>>
>>>> *UNCOMPREHENDING*
>>>
>>> we can't even pretend that you eliminationists can comprehend the
>>> significance of the difference at all
>>
>> Meaningless gibberish
>>>>>> You are severely afflicted by an overestimation of your mental ability
>>>>>
>>>>> I KNOW I can appreciate when AW successfully results
>>>>
>>>> Fuckwit: you are not above anyone
>>>
>>> ANYONE who encourages appreciation for lives of positive value
>>
>> Meaningless cracker gibberish.
>
> LOL...you wish
We *all* know, Fuckwit - including you.
Let's get back to the point, shall we? You are stupid and incompetent,
but you are *SO* stupid and incompetent that it leads you to believe,
wrongly, that you are smart and competent. That's the Dunning-Kruger
effect. Every time you blabber about being "beyond" or "above" others
mentally, the exact opposite is true. With the exception of Douchebag
Hamilton, *everyone* here is above and beyond you.
dh
>On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:51:22 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 16:41:08 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:52:45 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 03:09:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Aug 13, 1:45 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>>> <chortle>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It just doesn't get any more absurd than that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why didn't you answer my question, ...[Goo]? Is it because you are aware
>>>>>that it is extremely stupid to claim that I am having a psychosis at
>>>>>the moment?
>>>>
>>>> How could Goo have any clue about whether you are or not?
>>>>
>>>> This stupid Goober doesn't even know how good sci fi is similar to
>>>>theoretical physics.
>>>
>>>1. It isn't similar in any way.
>>
>> LOL! You're wrong, while at the same time proving me correct.
>
>No, I'm not wrong. They aren't similar in any way.
You are wrong, and if you actually believe it this is something else you're
remarkably stupid about Goo.
>First, you - an
>ignorant, uneducated cracKKKer - wouldn't know "good" sci-fi if someone
>beat you over the head with it.
Goober I KNOW Ringworld is good, and even though it wasn't proven as clearly
and by as many people I know Rocheworld is good too. And Return to Rocheworld is
damned good too Goober.
>Second, sci-fi is just fairy tales
AGAIN you prove that you can't appreciate a distinction between sci fi and
fantasy...a distinction I was familiar with in high school. We keep running into
things I've been familiar with for decades that have never even entered your
stupid Goober mind, like physics related things, sci fi related things, and the
distinction between lives of positive and negative value. You really are an
incredibly shallow little pool of shit Goob, no doubt about that.
> - it
>doesn't have to have any link to real science at all, and in fact seldom
>does.
It does in order to actually be good Goober. That doesn't mean that no shit
has been dubbed as good even though it sux, but in order to actually BE good in
necessarily must have something to do with science as we understand it. You're
just proving my predictions that you can't appreciate a distinction between sci
fi and fantasy, and you certainly can't appreciate a distinction between which
sci fi is similar to theoretical physics and which is not.
>>>>Goo's idea of what good sci fi is, is probably something
>>>>like Lord of the Rings which isn't sci fi at all. It's a pretty safe bet that
>>>>Goob can't distinguish between sci fi and fantasy, and we KNOW he can't
>>>>distinguish between which sci fi is and is not similar to theoretical physics.
>>>
>>>2. You have *ZERO* familiarity with physics, so you have no
>>> fucking clue what might be similar to it.
>>
>> All sci fi refers to and is about physics Goo. You didn't know that.
>
>No,
We agree that you didn't know, and you still don't know.
>that's false
With that you confirmed that I'm correct and you still don't know.
>, Fuckwit. It's false two times: first, because much
>of sci-fi is actually "soft" sci-fi, which is about politics and society
>in the future.
It has to have some aspect of physics about it or it's not sci fi Goo.
LOL...that one's so obvious even you should be aware of it Goob.
>Second, because they just assume the physics away
LOL!!! They do not, you stupid Goober. They usually don't try to give
detailed explanations about how ideas would actually work, but the physics
remains even so.
>in order to have magical machinery that couldn't exist in reality.
Goo you are the LAST person who could have any clue abot what could be
possible and what could not. Here's a clue for you Goob: Time "travel" the way
it's presented in movies is not only not possible, but it's not even what they
are presenting. If the *traveler* were to travel "back" in time 200 years, he
would cease to exist since he didn't exist 200 years ago. No one told me that
Goober, and you never thought about it before and can't appreciate it now, but
that's how it is. In the stories all of the REST of the matter in the universe
goes "back in time" to the positions and conditions it was in 200 years ago, but
the so called "traveler" stays as he is meaning he does NOT go "back" in time.
Another one is the idea of traveling faster than light. Relative to what
Goo, have you been able to figure that one out? No, hell no you haven't. You
can't even recognise a siginificance to the question, or get any clue what I'm
referring to.
>Nope - there is no connection between sci-fi, of any quality, and
>"theoretical physics".
If you truly believe that Goober, you are extremely stupid for even letting
such a stupidly incorrect idea enter your clueless head.
George Plimpton
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:55:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison, animal-abusing cracKKKer, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 16:41:08 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, animal-abusing cracKKKer, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 03:09:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert<rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 13, 1:45 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>> <chortle>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It just doesn't get any more absurd than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why didn't you answer my question, ...[Goo]? Is it because you are aware
>>>>>> that it is extremely stupid to claim that I am having a psychosis at
>>>>>> the moment?
>>>>>
>>>>> How could Goo have any clue about whether you are or not?
>>>>>
>>>>> This stupid Goober doesn't even know how good sci fi is similar to
>>>>> theoretical physics.
>>>>
>>>> 1. It isn't similar in any way.
>>>
>>> LOL! You're wrong,
>>
>> No, I'm not wrong. They aren't similar in any way. First, you - an
>> ignorant, uneducated cracKKKer - wouldn't know "good" sci-fi if someone
>> beat you over the head with it.
>
> I KNOW Ringworld is good
You don't know *anything* is good, Fuckwit. You're ignorant, you're
uneducated, and you have no taste.
>
>> Second, sci-fi is just fairy tales - it
>> doesn't have to have any link to real science at all, and in fact seldom
>> does.
>
> It does in order to actually be good
Nope - not a requirement at all, Fuckwit. And *YOU* wouldn't know if it
was real science or not, Fuckwit - YOU DON'T KNOW SCIENCE.
>>>>> Goo's idea of what good sci fi is, is probably something
>>>>> like Lord of the Rings which isn't sci fi at all. It's a pretty safe bet that
>>>>> Goob can't distinguish between sci fi and fantasy, and we KNOW he can't
>>>>> distinguish between which sci fi is and is not similar to theoretical physics.
>>>>
>>>> 2. You have *ZERO* familiarity with physics, so you have no
>>>> fucking clue what might be similar to it.
>>>
>>> All sci fi refers to and is about physics
>>
>> No, that's false, Fuckwit. It's false two times: first, because much
>> of sci-fi is actually "soft" sci-fi, which is about politics and society
>> in the future.
>
> It has to have some aspect of physics about it or
No, it does not, Fuckwit. It isn't "physics" - it's make-believe future
crap.
>
>> Second, because they just assume the physics away in order to have
>> magical machinery that couldn't exist in reality.
>
> you are the LAST person who could have any clue abot what could be
> possible and what could not.
Fuckwit, I very naturally have *FAR* more idea than you have, because I
am educated and you are not.
>> Nope - there is no connection between sci-fi, of any quality, and
>> "theoretical physics".
>
> If you truly believe that
It is so, Fuckwit. It just is.
Mr.Smartypants
> Fuckwit David Harrison, animal-abusing cracKKKer, lied:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:55:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >> Fuckwit David Harrison, animal-abusing cracKKKer, lied:
>
> >>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 16:41:08 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, animal-abusing cracKKKer, lied:
>
Yeh, for sure Goobs. That PhD in economics that you DON'T have
convinced you that some cows are raised for 12 years for no other
purpose than to be pet food.
>
> >> Nope - there is no connection between sci-fi, of any quality, and
> >> "theoretical physics".
>
> > If you truly believe that
>
> It is so, Fuckwit. It just is.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
dh
>On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:05:38 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:55:26 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:51:22 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 16:41:08 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:52:45 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 03:09:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Aug 13, 1:45 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>> <chortle>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It just doesn't get any more absurd than that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why didn't you answer my question, ...[Goo]? Is it because you are aware
>>>>>>>that it is extremely stupid to claim that I am having a psychosis at
>>>>>>>the moment?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How could Goo have any clue about whether you are or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This stupid Goober doesn't even know how good sci fi is similar to
>>>>>>theoretical physics.
>>>>>
>>>>>1. It isn't similar in any way.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! You're wrong, while at the same time proving me correct.
>>>
>>>No, I'm not wrong. They aren't similar in any way.
>>
>> You are wrong, and if you actually believe it this is something else you're
>>remarkably stupid about Goo.
>>
>>>First, you - an
>>>ignorant, uneducated cracKKKer - wouldn't know "good" sci-fi if someone
>>>beat you over the head with it.
>>
>> Goober I KNOW Ringworld is good, and even though it wasn't proven as clearly
>>and by as many people I know Rocheworld is good too.
>
>You don't know *anything* is good, Fuckwit. You're ignorant, you're
>uneducated, and you have no taste.
You can't comprehend any of this Goo. I always suspected that if the
discussion turned to topics like this that you would be completely clueless, and
you have certainly proven me correct on that. There's no doubt that Ringworld is
good sci fi for a number or reasons, yet you can comprehend none of them. You
also can't comprehend way that Rocheworld or any other sci fi is similar to
theoretical physics. Goober you not only can't attempt to distinguish between
which is and which is not, but your mental limitations prevent you from
recognising that any is. LOL...and again Goob, your mental limitations do NOT
make you superior.
>>And Return to Rocheworld is
>>damned good too Goober.
>>
>>>Second, sci-fi is just fairy tales
>>
>> AGAIN you prove that you can't appreciate a distinction between sci fi and
>>fantasy...a distinction I was familiar with in high school. We keep running into
>>things I've been familiar with for decades that have never even entered your
>>stupid Goober mind, like physics related things, sci fi related things, and the
>>distinction between lives of positive and negative value. You really are an
>>incredibly shallow little pool of shit Goob, no doubt about that.
>>
>>> - it
>>>doesn't have to have any link to real science at all, and in fact seldom
>>>does.
>>
>> It does in order to actually be good Goober. That doesn't mean that no shit
>>has been dubbed as good even though it sux, but in order to actually BE good in
>>necessarily must have something to do with science as we understand it. You're
>>just proving my predictions that you can't appreciate a distinction between sci
>>fi and fantasy, and you certainly can't appreciate a distinction between which
>>sci fi is similar to theoretical physics and which is not.
>>
>>>>>>Goo's idea of what good sci fi is, is probably something
>>>>>>like Lord of the Rings which isn't sci fi at all. It's a pretty safe bet that
>>>>>>Goob can't distinguish between sci fi and fantasy, and we KNOW he can't
>>>>>>distinguish between which sci fi is and is not similar to theoretical physics.
>>>>>
>>>>>2. You have *ZERO* familiarity with physics, so you have no
>>>>> fucking clue what might be similar to it.
>>>>
>>>> All sci fi refers to and is about physics Goo. You didn't know that.
>>>
>>>No,
>>
>> We agree that you didn't know, and you still don't know.
>>
>>>that's false
>>
>> With that you confirmed that I'm correct and you still don't know.
>>
>>>, Fuckwit. It's false two times: first, because much
>>>of sci-fi is actually "soft" sci-fi, which is about politics and society
>>>in the future.
>>
>> It has to have some aspect of physics about it or it's not sci fi Goo.
>
>No, it does not
LOL!!!
. . .
>>LOL...that one's so obvious even you should be aware of it Goob.
>
>>>Second, because they just assume the physics away
>>
>> LOL!!! They do not, you stupid Goober. They usually don't try to give
>>detailed explanations about how ideas would actually work, but the physics
>>remains even so.
>>
>>>in order to have magical machinery that couldn't exist in reality.
>>
>> Goo you are the LAST person who could have any clue abot what could be
>>possible and what could not. Here's a clue for you Goob: Time "travel" the way
>>it's presented in movies is not only not possible, but it's not even what they
>>are presenting. If the *traveler* were to travel "back" in time 200 years, he
>>would cease to exist since he didn't exist 200 years ago. No one told me that
>>Goober, and you never thought about it before and can't appreciate it now, but
>>that's how it is. In the stories all of the REST of the matter in the universe
>>goes "back in time" to the positions and conditions it was in 200 years ago, but
>>the so called "traveler" stays as he is meaning he does NOT go "back" in time.
. . .
>I am educated and you are not.
No one knows everything Goob, and you have no clue about what I just got
through pointing out for you. Some people can understand and some can't, and you
are one of those who can't. I figured it out on my own without anyone having to
explain it for me Goo, while you can't figure it out even after it has been
explained to you.
>> Another one is the idea of traveling faster than light. Relative to what
>>Goo, have you been able to figure that one out? No, hell no you haven't. You
>>can't even recognise a siginificance to the question, or get any clue what I'm
>>referring to.
>>
>>>Nope - there is no connection between sci-fi, of any quality, and
>>>"theoretical physics".
>>
>> If you truly believe that Goober, you are extremely stupid for even letting
>>such a stupidly incorrect idea enter your clueless head.
>
>It is so
You are extremely stupid for not recognising how any sci fi is similar
Goober. Not necessarily because you can't distinguish between which is and which
is not, or even necessarily because you didn't notice the fact without having to
have someone point it out for you, but you ARE extremely stupid for not being
able to recognise it after it has been pointed out for you, Goo.
. . .
>>>>Everything else is related to physics Goober. All science is related to physics.
>>>>You can't comprehend how Goob but most people can. You won't get this either
>>>>Goo, but here's something else for you to be confused about:
>>>>
>>>>"There are only two kinds of science: physics and butterfly collecting." - Lord
>>>>Ernest Rutherford
You also have no clue what Rutherford was getting at Goob.
dh
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On Aug 17, 2:31 pm, Goo wrote:
>> Fuckwit David Harrison, animal-abusing cracKKKer, lied:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:55:26 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >> Fuckwit David Harrison, animal-abusing cracKKKer, lied:
>>
That particular one was so stupid it's impressive that even the Goober could
be stupid enough to believe it. It's clear that Goo has had formal education and
did okay with it, but it's still equally clear that he has to be stupid since he
believes such stupid things. Not being able to appreciate the similarity he's
revealing he can't appreciate here is another similar example of impressive
stupidity, and impressive ignorance. It's not so bad that a person can't figure
out some of these things for himself, and some of them are things people almost
never mention or maybe even think about. But Goo can't appreciate, meaning he
also can't comprehend to a respectable degree, things even after they're handed
to him.
George Plimpton
We've been through this before, Fuckwit. There is nothing you
comprehend that I cannot, but there are countless things I comprehend
that you cannot, and *could* not no matter how long you tried. I am
both smarter and more intelligent than you, Fuckwit: I know more
(smarter), and I can learn faster and easier (more intelligent). You're
a fucking plodding stupid cracKKKer, Fuckwit. *Everyone* has contempt
for your intellect.
You know nothing about literature or what comprises good writing,
Fuckwit. One way we know this is your own execrable written expression.
>>>> Second, because they just assume the physics away
>>>> in order to have magical machinery that couldn't exist in reality.
>>>
>>> Goo you are the LAST person who could have any clue abot what could be
>>> possible and what could not. Here's a clue for you Goob: Time "travel" the way
>>> it's presented in movies is not only not possible, but it's not even what they
>>> are presenting. If the *traveler* were to travel "back" in time 200 years, he
>>> would cease to exist since he didn't exist 200 years ago. No one told me that
>>> Goober, and you never thought about it before and can't appreciate it now, but
>>> that's how it is. In the stories all of the REST of the matter in the universe
>>> goes "back in time" to the positions and conditions it was in 200 years ago, but
>>> the so called "traveler" stays as he is meaning he does NOT go "back" in time.
> . . .
>> I am educated and you are not.
>
> No one knows everything
I know more than you about any meaningful or useful thing, Fuckwit. I
also know and appreciate good writing, and you do not.
>>>> Nope - there is no connection between sci-fi, of any quality, and
>>>> "theoretical physics".
>>>
>>> If you truly believe that Goober, you are extremely stupid for even letting
>>> such a stupidly incorrect idea enter your clueless head.
>>
>> It is so
>
> You are extremely stupid for not recognising how any sci fi is similar
You are extremely stupid and low-brow for thinking it has anything to do
with "theoretical physics", Fuckwit. You just stuck "theoretical" in
front of it to try to sound smart, but it was another massive fail,
Fuckwit. You don't know *anything* about any kind of physics, Fuckwit -
theoretical or applied. You're stupid, Fuckwit. At *MOST*, you are a
graduate of high school, and a shitty cracKKKer high school at that.
dh
>On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:28:42 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>>Path: s09-06.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!s09-11.readnews.com!unm2.readnews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
>>X-Trace: DXC=2;W=^a7CTh7[T3`QUlW[?:GiIE3N[Y[M3j]1C:5W\OQ<iVE:iYOJY0>Nao7]RXCdn7PhCm\\hMLn2ihMf>_]Xd\<\=;j^DJB3C0E>FiC@9\F0:kCL_lG0A7L1QJW1L@iGo\;
>>X-Complaints-To: sup...@fastusenet.net
>>From: dh@.
>>Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,misc.rural,alt.satanism
>>Subject: Re: "Good sci fi is similar to theoretical physics" -- Fuckwit David Harrison, high school dropout cracKKKer
>>Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:28:42 -0700
>>Message-ID: <ofi557t59kstmhic3...@4ax.com>
>>References: <w_ednYOY5oCtp93T...@giganews.com> <LM-dnbZw4fQv19jT...@giganews.com> <3c36416e-05de-4def...@y8g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <sbdg47176oaaj91jl...@4ax.com> <4uGdnQlUz56iwNXT...@giganews.com> <5eil47ljmnm3r77v8...@4ax.com> <xrWdnWR3PuacPNfT...@giganews.com> <n9io47hkrliogj8t8...@4ax.com> <LoKdnVdWJOiFuNHT...@giganews.com>
>>X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 3.1/32.783
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>>Lines: 164
>>Organization: readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: 6b8dbbcd.newsreader.readnews.com
>> You can't comprehend any of this Goo. I always suspected that if the
>>discussion turned to topics like this that you would be completely clueless, and
>>you have certainly proven me correct on that. There's no doubt that Ringworld is
>>good sci fi for a number or reasons, yet you can comprehend none of them. You
>>also can't comprehend way that Rocheworld or any other sci fi is similar to
>>theoretical physics. Goober you not only can't attempt to distinguish between
>>which is and which is not, but your mental limitations prevent you from
>>recognising that any is.
>
>We've been through this before, Fuckwit. There is nothing you
>comprehend that I cannot,
You can't comprehend how ANY sci fi is similar to theoretical physics and I
can Goob.
>>LOL...and again Goob, your mental limitations do NOT
>>make you superior.
>>
>>>>And Return to Rocheworld is
>>>>damned good too Goober.
. . .
>>>> Goo you are the LAST person who could have any clue abot what could be
>>>>possible and what could not. Here's a clue for you Goob: Time "travel" the way
>>>>it's presented in movies is not only not possible, but it's not even what they
>>>>are presenting. If the *traveler* were to travel "back" in time 200 years, he
>>>>would cease to exist since he didn't exist 200 years ago. No one told me that
>>>>Goober, and you never thought about it before and can't appreciate it now, but
>>>>that's how it is. In the stories all of the REST of the matter in the universe
>>>>goes "back in time" to the positions and conditions it was in 200 years ago, but
>>>>the so called "traveler" stays as he is meaning he does NOT go "back" in time.
>>. . .
>>>I am educated and you are not.
>>
>> No one knows everything Goob, and you have no clue about what I just got
>>through pointing out for you. Some people can understand and some can't, and you
>>are one of those who can't. I figured it out on my own without anyone having to
>>explain it for me Goo, while you can't figure it out even after it has been
>>explained to you.
>
>I know more than you about any meaningful or useful thing
You don't understand what I explained to you about time "travel" Goo.
>, Fuckwit. I also know and appreciate good writing, and you do not.
"Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
and never an advantage." - Cicero
Notice that you are similar in being somewhat eloquent from time to time,
but never work to improve anything or anyone. You boast that you have prevented
eliminationists from trying to overcome their own mental restrictions and moving
on to an AW position, Goober. There were sorry shits like yourself around in
Cicero's day apparently Goo. I imagine he might find it amusing that you who
boast of keeping the eliminationist down in the eliminationist position, also
are thought of as working FOR the eliminationists themselves.
>>>> Another one is the idea of traveling faster than light. Relative to what
>>>>Goo, have you been able to figure that one out? No, hell no you haven't. You
>>>>can't even recognise a siginificance to the question, or get any clue what I'm
>>>>referring to.
>>>>
>>>>>Nope - there is no connection between sci-fi, of any quality, and
>>>>>"theoretical physics".
>>>>
>>>> If you truly believe that Goober, you are extremely stupid for even letting
>>>>such a stupidly incorrect idea enter your clueless head.
>>>
>>>It is so
>>
>> You are extremely stupid for not recognising how any sci fi is similar
>>Goober. Not necessarily because you can't distinguish between which is and which
>>is not, or even necessarily because you didn't notice the fact without having to
>>have someone point it out for you, but you ARE extremely stupid for not being
>>able to recognise it after it has been pointed out for you, Goo.
>
>You are extremely stupid and low-brow for thinking it has anything to do
>with "theoretical physics", Fuckwit. You just stuck "theoretical" in
>front of it to try to sound smart
It may somehow seem that way from your ignorant position Goober, but I
"just" stuck it in there because I was referring to theoretical physics at the
time. Duh Goo, but you STILL can't comprehend. LOOK IT UP GOOB!
. . .
>>. . .
>>>>>>Everything else is related to physics Goober. All science is related to physics.
>>>>>>You can't comprehend how Goob but most people can. You won't get this either
>>>>>>Goo, but here's something else for you to be confused about:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"There are only two kinds of science: physics and butterfly collecting." - Lord
>>>>>>Ernest Rutherford
>>
>> You also have no clue what Rutherford was getting at Goob.
Look that up too, Goo.
George Plimpton
You don't know literature.
>>>> You don't know *anything* is good, Fuckwit. You're ignorant, you're
>>>> uneducated, and you have no taste.
>>>
>>> You can't comprehend any of this
>>
>> We've been through this before, Fuckwit. There is nothing you
>> comprehend that I cannot,
>
> You can't comprehend how ANY sci fi is similar to theoretical physics
It isn't. It has nothing to do with it.
>>> LOL...and again, your mental limitations
You are the mentally handicapped boy, Fuckwit.
>>>>> And Return to Rocheworld is
>>>>> damned good too Goober.
> . . .
>>>>> you are the LAST person who could have any clue abot [sic]
>>> . . .
>>>> I am educated and you are not.
>>>
>>> No one knows everything
>>
>> I know more than you about any meaningful or useful thing, Fuckwit. I also know and appreciate good writing, and you do not.
>
> "Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
You don't know who Cicero was.
>>>>> Another one is the idea of traveling faster than light. Relative to what
>>>>> Goo, have you been able to figure that one out? No, hell no you haven't. You
>>>>> can't even recognise a siginificance to the question, or get any clue what I'm
>>>>> referring to.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope - there is no connection between sci-fi, of any quality, and
>>>>>> "theoretical physics".
>>>>>
>>>>> If you truly believe that
>>>>
>>>> It is so
>>>
>>> You are extremely stupid for
>>
>> You are extremely stupid and low-brow for thinking it has anything to do
>> with "theoretical physics", Fuckwit. You just stuck "theoretical" in
>> front of it to try to sound smart
>
> It may somehow seem that way from
That's how it is, Fuckwit. You don't know anything about theoretical
physics - zero.
Mr.Smartypants
> On 8/25/2011 1:49 PM, dh@. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:55:53 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:28:42 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>> X-Trace: DXC=2;W=^a7CTh7[T3`QUlW[?:GiIE3N[Y[M3j]1C:5W\OQ<iVE:iYOJY0>Nao7]RXCdn7PhCm\\hMLn2ihMf>_]Xd\<\=;j^DJB3C0E>FiC@9\F0:kCL_lG0A7L1QJW1L@iGo\;
> >>> From: dh@.
> >>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,misc.rural,alt.satanism
> >>> Subject: Re: "Good sci fi is similar to theoretical physics" -- Fuckwit David Harrison, high school dropout cracKKKer
> >>> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:28:42 -0700
> >>> References:<w_ednYOY5oCtp93TnZ2dnUVZ5gSdn...@giganews.com> <LM-dnbZw4fQv19jTnZ2dnUVZ5radn...@giganews.com> <3c36416e-05de-4def-8ae2-fd717db4c...@y8g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <sbdg47176oaaj91jl8hndlnb6vkupoo...@4ax.com> <4uGdnQlUz56iwNXTnZ2dnUVZ5o6dn...@giganews.com> <5eil47ljmnm3r77v8h9v0o3a1goq9q7...@4ax.com> <xrWdnWR3PuacPNfTnZ2dnUVZ5tqdn...@giganews.com> <n9io47hkrliogj8t8669dm7gcsp86o8...@4ax.com> <LoKdnVdWJOiFuNHTnZ2dnUVZ5h-dn...@giganews.com>
> >>> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 3.1/32.783
> >>> MIME-Version: 1.0
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> >>> Lines: 164
> >>> Organization: readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
> >>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 6b8dbbcd.newsreader.readnews.com
>
> >>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:31:18 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
> >>>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:05:38 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:55:26 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:51:22 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 16:41:08 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:52:45 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
teach him about pet food economics, Goo. That's always good for a
laugh.
George Plimpton
> On Aug 25, 12:04 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 8/25/2011 1:49 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:55:53 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:28:42 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>>> X-Trace: DXC=2;W=^a7CTh7[T3`QUlW[?:GiIE3N[Y[M3j]1C:5W\OQ<iVE:iYOJY0>Nao7]RXCdn7PhCm\苒hMLn2ihMf>_]Xd\<\=;j^DJB3C0E>FiC@9\F0:kCL_lG0A7L1QJW1L@iGo\;
>>>>> X-Complaints-To: supp...@fastusenet.net
>>>>> From: dh@.
>>>>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,misc.rur苔l,alt.satanism
You're a lifelong loser.
dh
>teach him about pet food economics, Goo. That's always good for a
>laugh.
Goo is already outstupiding himself on that again. First he outstupided
himself by lying that the following quote is not a quote:
"with 120 million cats and dogs who eat lots of beef, Fuckwit, it is
obvious that plenty of additional cattle are raised that would not be
raised if the 120 million cats and dogs all disappeared." - Goo
which it certainly is. Then Goob went on to outstupid himself even further by
claiming that the stupid claim is true...LOL... Goo STILL believes it, which is
yet *another* way the stupid Goober is outstupiding himself.
dh
>>>>>> Goober I KNOW Ringworld is good, and even though it wasn't proven as clearly
>>>>>>and by as many people I know Rocheworld is good too.
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't know *anything* is good, Fuckwit. You're ignorant, you're
>>>>>uneducated, and you have no taste.
>>>>
>>>> You can't comprehend any of this Goo. I always suspected that if the
>>>>discussion turned to topics like this that you would be completely clueless, and
>>>>you have certainly proven me correct on that. There's no doubt that Ringworld is
>>>>good sci fi for a number or reasons, yet you can comprehend none of them. You
>>>>also can't comprehend way that Rocheworld or any other sci fi is similar to
>>>>theoretical physics. Goober you not only can't attempt to distinguish between
>>>>which is and which is not, but your mental limitations prevent you from
>>>>recognising that any is.
>>>
>>>We've been through this before, Fuckwit. There is nothing you
>>>comprehend that I cannot,
>>
>> You can't comprehend how ANY sci fi is similar to theoretical physics and I
>>can Goob.
>
>It isn't.
As I pointed out, you can't comprehend but I can, Goo.
>It has nothing to do with it.
Larry Niven
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
. . .
His best-known work is Ringworld (1970), which received Hugo, Locus, Ditmar, and
Nebula awards. His work is primarily hard science fiction, using big science
concepts and theoretical physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_niven
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:6ufl57dmfeh4c414l...@4ax.com...
Give the economic argument that refutes that statement. I assume it will
include some elements of overall supply, demand and waste recovery.
I'll start you off, typing LOL! and calling someone stupid doesn't count.
George Plimpton
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:04:10 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison, lying cracKKKer, lied:
>>>> We've been through this before, Fuckwit. There is nothing you
>>>> comprehend that I cannot,
>>>
>>> You can't comprehend how ANY sci fi is similar to theoretical physics
>>
>> It isn't.
>
> As I pointed out,
You didn't.
"Sci fi" of any quality has nothing *whatever* to do with <chortle>
"theoretical physics." It occasionally has just a wee bit to do with
applied physics, but never with "theoretical physics."
You don't know any physics at all, Fuckwit.
dh
Apparently there is enough by-product from human meat and vegetable
production to feed the nation's (USA) pets that additional animals need not be
raised just to be made into pet food. Pet food is BY-PRODUCTS! Waste.
IF!!! your imaginary pet food cattle did exist, what do you imagine would
happen to the choice cuts?
dh
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> Goo wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can't comprehend how ANY sci fi is similar to theoretical physics and I
>>>>can Goob.
>>>
>>>It isn't.
>>
>> As I pointed out, you can't comprehend but I can, Goo.
>>
>>>It has nothing to do with it.
>>
>>Larry Niven
>>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>. . .
>>His best-known work is Ringworld (1970), which received Hugo, Locus, Ditmar, and
>>Nebula awards. His work is primarily hard science fiction, using big science
>>concepts and theoretical physics.
>
>"Sci fi" of any quality has nothing *whatever* to do with <chortle>
>"theoretical physics."
LOL!!!
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:edov571a3181n0ah3...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 13:11:13 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:6ufl57dmfeh4c414l...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:16:45 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants" challenged
>>> Goo:
>>>
>>>>teach him about pet food economics, Goo. That's always good for a
>>>>laugh.
>>>
>>> Goo is already outstupiding himself on that again. First he
>>> outstupided
>>> himself by lying that the following quote is not a quote:
>>>
>>> "with 120 million cats and dogs who eat lots of beef, Fuckwit, it is
>>> obvious that plenty of additional cattle are raised that would not be
>>> raised if the 120 million cats and dogs all disappeared." - Goo
>>>
>>> which it certainly is. Then Goob went on to outstupid himself even
>>> further
>>> by
>>> claiming that the stupid claim is true...LOL... Goo STILL believes it,
>>> which is
>>> yet *another* way the stupid Goober is outstupiding himself.
>>
>>Give the economic argument that refutes that statement. I assume it will
>>include some elements of overall supply, demand and waste recovery.
>
> Apparently
Apparently??? ROTFL
THAT is your economic argument? That's called begging the question.
there is enough by-product from human meat and vegetable
> production to feed the nation's (USA) pets that additional animals need
> not be
> raised just to be made into pet food. Pet food is BY-PRODUCTS! Waste.
>
> IF!!! your imaginary pet food cattle did exist, what do you imagine
> would
> happen to the choice cuts?
His statement said nothing about "pet food cattle", although such animals DO
exist as anyone can discover with a simple Google search. He said that
"additional cattle are raised" due to the demand for pet food.
Consider the fact that the pet food business is very profitable, making the
livestock industry more profitable, (i.e. there is almost no waste) meaning
that the portion of the animals used for human consumption can easily be
restricted to only the best cuts without undue loss of profit. Since only
the best cuts need be used to maintain a profitable industry therefore more
animals can be raised. That is just one obvious argument, there are
undoubtedly many more.
George Plimpton
>> "Sci fi" of any quality has nothing *whatever* to do with<chortle>
>> "theoretical physics."
>
> LOL!!!
Yes, it *is* funny, Fuckwit, but the laughter is entirely directed at
you. "Sci fi", virtually none of which is good literature, has to do
with *applied* physics, not "theoretical" physics.
But you wouldn't know the difference, being stupid and a low-brow
knuckle-dragging cracKKKer.
dh
>
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:edov571a3181n0ah3...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 13:11:13 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:6ufl57dmfeh4c414l...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:16:45 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants" challenged
>>>> Goo:
>>>>
>>>>>teach him about pet food economics, Goo. That's always good for a
>>>>>laugh.
>>>>
>>>> Goo is already outstupiding himself on that again. First he
>>>> outstupided
>>>> himself by lying that the following quote is not a quote:
>>>>
>>>> "with 120 million cats and dogs who eat lots of beef, Fuckwit, it is
>>>> obvious that plenty of additional cattle are raised that would not be
>>>> raised if the 120 million cats and dogs all disappeared." - Goo
>>>>
>>>> which it certainly is. Then Goob went on to outstupid himself even
>>>> further
>>>> by
>>>> claiming that the stupid claim is true...LOL... Goo STILL believes it,
>>>> which is
>>>> yet *another* way the stupid Goober is outstupiding himself.
>>>
>>>Give the economic argument that refutes that statement. I assume it will
>>>include some elements of overall supply, demand and waste recovery.
>>
>> Apparently
>
>Apparently???
That appears to be the case considering the fact that we KNOW by-products
are used but we know of NO significant number of animals being raised for no
reason other than to become pet food.
>ROTFL
The appearance is that I'm correct, making "apparently" apply very well.
>THAT is your economic argument? That's called begging the question.
LOL!!! It's called referring to aspects of what we're discussing.
>> there is enough by-product from human meat and vegetable
>> production to feed the nation's (USA) pets that additional animals need
>> not be
>> raised just to be made into pet food. Pet food is BY-PRODUCTS! Waste.
>>
>> IF!!! your imaginary pet food cattle did exist, what do you imagine
>> would
>> happen to the choice cuts?
>
>His statement said nothing about "pet food cattle", although such animals DO
>exist as anyone can discover with a simple Google search.
Try providing evidence of it. Go:
>He said that
>"additional cattle are raised" due to the demand for pet food.
>
>Consider the fact that the pet food business is very profitable, making the
>livestock industry more profitable, (i.e. there is almost no waste) meaning
>that the portion of the animals used for human consumption can easily be
>restricted to only the best cuts without undue loss of profit.
There is enough waste from the human market that additional animals need not
be raised. Humans wouldn't eat different cuts etc if there were no dogs and
cats.
>Since only
>the best cuts need be used to maintain a profitable industry
LOL!!! There are plenty of things in canned foods that are not the "best
cuts". As always you have no argument.
Try explaining what you want people think happens to the choice cuts of your
supposed pet food cattle. How long do you want people to believe they are raised
before being made into pet food?
dh
>On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:54:36 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 13:37:21 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't comprehend how ANY sci fi is similar to theoretical physics and I
>>>>>>can Goob.
>>>>>
>>>>>It isn't.
>>>>
>>>> As I pointed out, you can't comprehend but I can, Goo.
>>>>
>>>>>It has nothing to do with it.
>>>>
>>>>Larry Niven
>>>>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>>>. . .
>>>>His best-known work is Ringworld (1970), which received Hugo, Locus, Ditmar, and
>>>>Nebula awards. His work is primarily hard science fiction, using big science
>>>>concepts and theoretical physics.
>>>
>>>"Sci fi" of any quality has nothing *whatever* to do with <chortle>
>>>"theoretical physics."
>>
>> LOL!!!
>
>Yes, it *is* funny
LOL...immediately after seeing a Wikipedia article relating Niven's work to
theoretical physics, you said what you did Goo. Hilarious!
>"Sci fi", virtually none of which is good literature
The concepts are usually pretty lame too Goo, but most of Niven's stuff is
great. The whole "Known Space" concept is excellent though people like yourself
will never really be able to appreciate it, and in your particular case you'll
probably never be able to appreciate it to any extent at all. In fact you'll
probably never even learn what I'm telling you about, Goob.
Mr.Smartypants
"I know a lot about dogs." - Goo
Mr.Smartypants
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:edov571a3181n0ah3...@4ax.com...> >><dh@.> wrote in messagenews:6ufl57dmfeh4c414l...@4ax.com...
So you're trying to say the "best cuts" go into weiners, hamburger,
and bologna!!?
Dutch
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 11:38:26 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>His statement said nothing about "pet food cattle", although such animals
>>DO
>>exist as anyone can discover with a simple Google search.
>
> Try providing evidence of it.
Google it.
George Plimpton
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:54:33 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:54:36 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 13:37:21 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't comprehend how ANY sci fi is similar to theoretical physics and I
>>>>>>> can Goob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I pointed out, you can't comprehend but I can, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It has nothing to do with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Larry Niven
>>>> > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>>>> . . .
>>>>> His best-known work is Ringworld (1970), which received Hugo, Locus, Ditmar, and
>>>>> Nebula awards. His work is primarily hard science fiction, using big science
>>>>> concepts and theoretical physics.
>>>>
>>>> "Sci fi" of any quality has nothing *whatever* to do with<chortle>
>>>> "theoretical physics."
>>>
>>> LOL!!!
>>
>> Yes, it *is* funny
>
But nothing. It isn't literature. It's pabulum for idiots like you.
There is no "theoretical physics" in any of it; only applied physics.
George Plimpton
He and I both already have done.
George Plimpton
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:54:33 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:54:36 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 13:37:21 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't comprehend how ANY sci fi is similar to theoretical physics and I
>>>>>>> can Goob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I pointed out, you can't comprehend but I can, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It has nothing to do with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Larry Niven
>>>> > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>>>> . . .
>>>>> His best-known work is Ringworld (1970), which received Hugo, Locus, Ditmar, and
>>>>> Nebula awards. His work is primarily hard science fiction, using big science
>>>>> concepts and theoretical physics.
>>>>
>>>> "Sci fi" of any quality has nothing *whatever* to do with<chortle>
>>>> "theoretical physics."
>>>
>>> LOL!!!
>>
>> Yes, it *is* funny
>
> LOL...immediately after seeing a Wikipedia article relating Niven's work to
> theoretical physics,
LOL! Fuckwit, stupid fuckwits like you write those Wikipedia pages!
They're not authoritative, Fuckwit - they're nothing but fanzines. I
assure you, Fuckwit, that Niven does not work "theoretical physics" into
his scribbling.
>> "Sci fi", virtually none of which is good literature
>
> The concepts are usually pretty lame too
They aren't literature, Goo.
dh
wrote:
LOL. The goos think there are choice cuts from prime animals in pet food, so
for them it's sort of a step up to think they go in stuff like that too. For
most people the idea would be idiotic, but for the goos it's an improvement.
dh
>On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 15:25:14 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 11:38:26 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>His statement said nothing about "pet food cattle", although such animals DO
>>>exist as anyone can discover with a simple Google search.
>>
>> Try providing evidence of it. Go:
>
>Google it.
Your inability to provide any evidence once again proves you a liar. You
tried to provide evidence in the past and your "best" was piss poor, feeding
less than even one hundred dogs.
>>>He said that
>>>"additional cattle are raised" due to the demand for pet food.
>>>
>>>Consider the fact that the pet food business is very profitable, making the
>>>livestock industry more profitable, (i.e. there is almost no waste) meaning
>>>that the portion of the animals used for human consumption can easily be
>>>restricted to only the best cuts without undue loss of profit.
>>
>> There is enough waste from the human market that additional animals need not
>>be raised. Humans wouldn't eat different cuts etc if there were no dogs and
>>cats.
>>
>>>Since only
>>>the best cuts need be used to maintain a profitable industry
>>
>> LOL!!! There are plenty of things in canned foods that are not the "best
>>cuts". As always you have no argument.
>>
>> Try explaining what you want people think happens to the choice cuts of your
>>supposed pet food cattle. How long do you want people to believe they are raised
>>before being made into pet food?
Your inability to even attempt answering those questions again proves you a
liar.
dh
>On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 15:26:06 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:54:33 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:54:36 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 13:37:21 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can't comprehend how ANY sci fi is similar to theoretical physics and I
>>>>>>>>can Goob.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I pointed out, you can't comprehend but I can, Goo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It has nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Larry Niven
>>>>>>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>>>>>. . .
>>>>>>His best-known work is Ringworld (1970), which received Hugo, Locus, Ditmar, and
>>>>>>Nebula awards. His work is primarily hard science fiction, using big science
>>>>>>concepts and theoretical physics.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Sci fi" of any quality has nothing *whatever* to do with <chortle>
>>>>>"theoretical physics."
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!!
>>>
>>>Yes, it *is* funny
>>
>> LOL...immediately after seeing a Wikipedia article relating Niven's work to
>>theoretical physics, you said what you did Goo. Hilarious!
>>
>>>"Sci fi", virtually none of which is good literature
>>
>> The concepts are usually pretty lame too Goo, but most of Niven's stuff is
>>great. The whole "Known Space" concept is excellent though people like yourself
>>will never really be able to appreciate it, and in your particular case you'll
>>probably never be able to appreciate it to any extent at all. In fact you'll
>>probably never even learn what I'm telling you about, Goob.
. . .
>There is no "theoretical physics" in any of it; only applied physics.
You're too ignorant to know of any Goob, and too stupid to recognise it even
when someone tells you about it. The author wasn't Niven, but the propulsion
system for the trip to Rocheworld is an excellent example of theoretical physics
in sci fi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocheworld
I used that example because it's about as clear a they come Goo, though you've
proven yourself too stupid to comprehend much less appreciate. I used that
example Goo, to successfully demonstrate you're too stupid to appreciate even
the easiest and clearest of examples ━)
George Plimpton
>> There is no "theoretical physics" in any of it; only applied physics.
>
> You're too ignorant to know of
No. There is no "theoretical" physics in science fiction, Goo.
> an excellent example of theoretical physics
> in sci fi:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocheworld
Nope - no reference to theoretical physics anywhere in that, Goo.
There's a little bit of blabber about applied physics in it - some
fantastical make-believe "light-sail propulsion system" - but not a word
of or reference to any "theoretical" physics.
Your insistence that "sci-fi" deals with "theoretical" physics is just
your lame attempt to try to glorify the shitty books you read. It
fails. Everything you do fails.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:mdea675jpvahbvm6g...@4ax.com...
No inability, I've already done so. You read the post at the time. You're
lying again.
dh
>On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 14:06:17 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 23:35:57 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 15:25:14 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 11:38:26 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:edov571a3181n0ah3...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IF!!! your imaginary pet food cattle did exist, what do you imagine
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> happen to the choice cuts?
>>>>>
>>>>>His statement said nothing about "pet food cattle", although such animals DO
>>>>>exist as anyone can discover with a simple Google search.
>>>>
>>>> Try providing evidence of it. Go:
>>>
>>>Google it.
>>
>> Your inability to provide any evidence once again proves you a liar. You
>>tried to provide evidence in the past and your "best" was piss poor, feeding
>>less than even one hundred dogs.
>>
>>>>>He said that
>>>>>"additional cattle are raised" due to the demand for pet food.
>>>>>
>>>>>Consider the fact that the pet food business is very profitable, making the
>>>>>livestock industry more profitable, (i.e. there is almost no waste) meaning
>>>>>that the portion of the animals used for human consumption can easily be
>>>>>restricted to only the best cuts without undue loss of profit.
>>>>
>>>> There is enough waste from the human market that additional animals need not
>>>>be raised. Humans wouldn't eat different cuts etc if there were no dogs and
>>>>cats.
>>>>
>>>>>Since only
>>>>>the best cuts need be used to maintain a profitable industry
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! There are plenty of things in canned foods that are not the "best
>>>>cuts". As always you have no argument.
>>>>
>>>> Try explaining what you want people think happens to the choice cuts of your
>>>>supposed pet food cattle. How long do you want people to believe they are raised
>>>>before being made into pet food?
>>
>> Your inability to even attempt answering those questions again proves you a
>>liar.
>
>No inability,
That's a blatant lie.
>I've already done so.
That's a blatant lie.
>You read the post at the time.
That's a blatant lie.
>You're lying again.
That's a blatant lie.
dh
. . .
>some fantastical make-believe "light-sail propulsion system"
LOL!!!
George Plimpton
Yeah, it's funny as hell. As with most "sci-fi", it's just a fairy
tale. Of course, there's no "theoretical physics" in it at all - just
some completely fanciful and *fake* applied physics.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:amsc67l18g80fadvp...@4ax.com...
The truth, liar. If I look it up again will you apologize and admit you've
been wrong all along?
dh
>The truth, liar. If I look it up again will you apologize and admit you've
>been wrong all along?
more likely I'd have it in my notes and be showing it to YOU than it is that I
would not, so of course I doubt you'll be able to show that I'm wrong.Please do
try though. Go:
>>>You read the post at the time.
>>
>>
>> That's a blatant lie.
>>
Dutch
http://blog.rollingdogranch.org/rolling_dog_ranch_animal_/2011/02/humanely-raised-pet-food.html
People raising cattle solely to be food for their pets. Do you need more or
are you ready to apologize now?
As a dishonest slug, true to form you will now move the goalposts.
dh
Not yet. First you need to explain why I should accept that supposed example
as having anything significant to do with the pet food industry, or at the very
least a significant pet food company. Go:
>>But IF you had done what you claim it's
>>more likely I'd have it in my notes and be showing it to YOU than it is that I
>>would not, so of course I doubt you'll be able to show that I'm wrong.Please do
>>try though. Go:
>>
>>>>>You read the post at the time.
>>>>
>>>> That's a blatant lie.
>>>>
>>>>>You're lying again.
>>>>
>>>> That's a blatant lie.
>>>>
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:tdth67dfjf9dak97j...@4ax.com...
claim isn't enough.
I told you you'd move the goalposts, because that's what dishonest
slimeballs do.
You know, this sentence you conveniently removed? "As a dishonest slug, true
Mr.Smartypants
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:tdth67dfjf9dak97j...@4ax.com...
>
> >>People raising cattle solely to be food for their pets. Do you need more
> >>or
> >>are you ready to apologize now?
>
> > Not yet. First you need to explain why I should accept that supposed
> > example
> > as having anything significant to do with the pet food industry, or at the
> > very
> > least a significant pet food company. Go:
>
> Oh, it has to be "a significant pet food company" now? Simply refuting the
> claim isn't enough.
>
> I told you you'd move the goalposts, because that's what dishonest
> slimeballs do.
>
> You know, this sentence you conveniently removed? "As a dishonest slug, true
Are you and that stupid Goober *still* trying to pretend that cows are
raised for 12 years serving no other purpose in those 12 years except
to become pet food?
Give it up, stupid.
Dutch
> Are you and that stupid Goober *still* trying to pretend that cows are
> raised for 12 years serving no other purpose in those 12 years except
> to become pet food?
>
> Give it up, stupid.
up issue. It makes you look like a desperate idiot.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote
some cows are raised for more than 12 year to be pet food and when
he's made to look the fool that he is, you jump on me.
You two clowns should get back in your little clown car.
Dutch
"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:91fe6de6-1c75-433b...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote
>>
>> > Are you and that stupid Goober *still* trying to pretend that cows are
>> > raised for 12 years serving no other purpose in those 12 years except
>> > to become pet food?
>>
>> > Give it up, stupid.
>>
>> You're the one who should give up this stupid, meaningless, asinine,
>> trumped
>> up issue. It makes you look like a desperate idiot.
>
> ROFL!!
like a desperate idiot.
Oh, I see why you continue, you ARE a desperate idiot.
George Plimpton
"look" like a desperate idiot - he *IS* a desperate idiot, which is the
very reason he engages in the lame, *failed* heckle.
It's astonishing that he can't see that it's a massive fail, and that it
doesn't achieve anything for him. The only thing I can imagine he
thinks he gets out of it is some false satisfaction from thinking that
he has annoyed us, but he doesn't have any ability to be annoying. I
enjoy abusing him.
Dutch
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:RYmdnbeg-oWG6_fT...@giganews.com...
worthy accomplishment. Ask any parent of a three year old.
Derek
wrote:
>On 9/9/2011 12:17 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>> news:91fe6de6-1c75-433b...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Sep 9, 11:22 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>> > Are you and that stupid Goober *still* trying to pretend that cows are
>>>> > raised for 12 years serving no other purpose in those 12 years except
>>>> > to become pet food?
>>>>
>>>> > Give it up, stupid.
>>>>
>>>> You're the one who should give up this stupid, meaningless, asinine,
>>>> trumped
>>>> up issue. It makes you look like a desperate idiot.
>>>
>>> ROFL!!
>>
>> It's a stupid, meaningless, asinine, trumped up issue. It makes you look
>> like a desperate idiot.
>>
>> Oh, I see why you continue, you ARE a desperate idiot.
>
>Exactly. Pursuing this lame, *failed* heckle doesn't make him merely
>"look" like a desperate idiot - he *IS* a desperate idiot, which is the
>very reason he engages in the lame, *failed* heckle.
ugly little dog I've ever seen. I'll never forget it. Its coat was
always filthy, his eyes bulged and it looked half-starved. But the
worst thing about it wasn't its looks, poor chap; it had the most
awful habit of humping people's legs. It would wrap his forelegs
around your leg like a clamp and follow you all over the room while
you tried shaking it off. That what Hamilton reminds me of: that
humping dog.
George Plimpton
That would actually be annoying. Douchebag Hamilton would like to be
that annoying, but he fails.
Anyway, that reminds me of a good story. Three Labrador retrievers -
chocolate, yellow, and black - are sitting in the waiting room at the
vet's office when they strike up a conversation.
The black Lab turns to the chocolate and says, "So why are you here?"
The chocolate Lab replies, "I'm a pisser. I piss on everything - the
sofa, the drapes, the cat, the kids. But the final straw was last night,
when I pissed in the middle of my owner's bed."
The black Lab says, "So what is the vet going to do?" "Gonna give me
Prozac," came the reply from the chocolate Lab . "All the vets are
prescribing it. It works for everything."
The black Lab then turns to the yellow Lab and asks, "Why are you here?"
The yellow Lab says, "I'm a digger. I dig under fences, dig up flowers
and trees, I dig just for the hell of it. When I'm inside, I dig up the
carpets. But I went over the line last night when I dug a great big
hole in my owner's couch."
"So what are they going to do to you?" the black Lab inquired. "Looks
like Prozac for me too," the dejected yellow Lab said.
Then the yellow Lab turns to the black Lab and asks what he's at the
vet's office for. "I'm a humper," the black Lab says. "I'll hump
anything. I'll hump the cat, a pillow, the table, fire hydrants,
whatever. I want to hump everything I see. Yesterday, my owner had just
got out of the shower and was bending down to dry her toes, and I just
couldn't help myself. I hopped on her back and started humping away."
The yellow and chocolate Labs exchange a sad glance and say, "So, Prozac
for you too, huh?"
The black Lab says, "No, I'm here to get my nails clipped."
George Plimpton
is all that motivates him. He has never wanted serious engagement on
any of the ostensible topics of the newsgroups.
Mr.Smartypants
> On 9/9/2011 4:06 PM, Derek wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:24:58 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 9/9/2011 12:17 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
Dutch
> Goo
Did I say you were aspiring to be an annoying three-year-old, my mistake,
you're aspiring to be a shitting-your-pants infant.
Fuckwit /actually/ has the intellect of a child, what's your excuse?
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote
What Goo knows about dogs is a joke.
dh
>It's astonishing that he can't see that it's a massive fail
LOL!!!
dh
>Back when I was just a kid I had a friend who had probably the most
>ugly little dog I've ever seen. I'll never forget it. Its coat was
>always filthy, his eyes bulged and it looked half-starved. But the
>worst thing about it wasn't its looks, poor chap; it had the most
>awful habit of humping people's legs. It would wrap his forelegs
>around your leg like a clamp and follow you all over the room while
>you tried shaking it off. That what Hamilton reminds me of: that
>humping dog.
dh
be raised specifically in order to be made into commercially produced pet food
by pet food companies which provide the food for millions of dogs and cats. His
boy "Dutch" is now trying to move the goalposts in a most contemptible way, by
suggesting that one farm where people raise a few cattle to feed less than 50
dogs is somehow able to support the Goober's idiotic claim.
>Give it up, stupid.
LOL! These goos have been such obvious losers through this whole thing, it
seems even they shouldn't be stupid enough to keep on with it. We really
shouldn't either since it's a waste of time, except for the fact that it's good
fun to point out how stupid Goo and his boys are.
dh
part to allow you that much. Goo's claim was that the pet food animals were
significant to the entire pet food market, not just to one or two particular
companies.
>Simply refuting the claim isn't enough.
>I told you you'd move the goalposts, because that's what dishonest
>slimeballs do.
>
>You know, this sentence you conveniently removed? "As a dishonest slug, true
>to form you will now move the goalposts."
about your own position I no longer allow you the great generosity I did allow
by pretending you provided one lame example. I'm done being generous. Your
stupid single farm thing was NOT an example, but instead it was just a dishonest
attempt to move the goal posts on your part.
You goos have not provided a single example of anything supporting Goo's
claim that:
"with 135,000,000 cats and
dogs in the U.S., the food to feed them simply cannot
be "leftovers" from the animals bred to feed humans.
Pet food producers are a big element of the total
demand for meat. That demand is going to translate
into additional animals. - Goo
George Plimpton
> [usual cracKKKer bullshit]
No connection between "sci fi" and "theoretical physics", Fuckwit. You
were just overreaching again.
George Plimpton
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:33:46 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) repeatedly talks about everyone else -
>> literally *everyone* else - being "mentally handicapped" and "below"
>> Fuckwit.
>
> That's a lie
No, it isn't.
It's that you people are very much INFERIOR to the average person
Goob, and even if I was way below average in that respect you
people are still WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY below me, and even way below
where I was when I was in grade school.
Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
That you who are below me are in an even worse position than I am
is one point. If I'm as stupid as Goo claims, yet I was farther
along than you are now by the time I was in 6th grade...
Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
MOST people can comprehend the difference between lives of positive
and negative value. We were doing it in grade school, meaning that
people who can not do it are below the average 6th grade child.
Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/01/11
I pointed out another significant thing that your mental
restrictions prevent you from being able to do.
Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 07/25/11
The concept is likely beyond your mental ability.
Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 07/27/11
In fact I've figure [sic] something out that's very obviously
beyond the mental ability of the eliminationist mind to appreciate
Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
...just to prevent mentally handicapped people from moving on to a
higher position which their mental handicap makes if very difficult
for them to achieve even without you working to hold them back
Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
You [Rupert] have severe mental limitations [note: Fuckwit is
blabbering here about Rupert's analytical ability, not his psychosis]
Goo Fuckwit Harrison - 08/08/11
Fuckwit, you blabber about your "superior" mental ability and perception
all the time. It's a joke - you are mentally below *everyone* else in
this newsgroup except for Douchebag Ron Hamilton.
> Since you're the one trying to create the impression,
You, Fuckwit, are the one trying to <chortle> "create the impression"
that you are mentally and cognitively superior to everyone else.
You are severely afflicted by an overestimation of your mental ability,
Fuckwit. You are *incompetent*, and your incompetence leads you
erroneously to think you are super-competent. It's hilarious.