Mainframe

Word. As long as their quarterbacks don't suck this year I think we'll see major improvement. And it would be pretty hard to suck as bad as they did last year. Boise scraped Oregon, the score should have been more like 39-8. I'd like to see Boise back in the BCS this year. Going to the Cal game on Saturday, should be a romp.

You don't see the big picture. Irony...you exemplify it.

Well, to me this sounds very pretentious. To assume that you are right about everything, that you have waked up to what is going on, just means that you have closed your mind to information that does not support the beliefs, whatever they may be, that are implied by that phrase. This rhetoric about planting 'the seed of liberty' doesn't mean anything to me. It sounds like a very narrow concept. The world is a very complex, chaotic place, and I understand there is a need to discern a sense of order amid the chaos. Check out the Pale Blue Dot photograph and read Carl Sagan's reflections on it...I find that provides a much deeper, more humble anchor for your perspective if you want to examine "what is going on." Your opinion on this was certainly not expressed in a "humble" manner. People with humble opinions don't flare up when other people point out flaws in their argument. Obviously I disagree and I've already explained myself in that other thread. I just think it might do you good to listen to what other people have to say. I'm not convinced that you really do this. This is a detached criticism, not hateful trolling.

Right. This seems especially stupid when it comes to science. It's hard to fathom why people who have little to no scientific experience relating to climate change run around spouting opinions like they're experts. Questioning policy is one thing, but these sheep need a lesson in listening to what real experts (i.e. climate scientists) have to say. It's very easy for some asshole with an agenda to bend the "facts" to fit their own ideas. I see plenty of that in these popular internet documentaries that message board denizens seem to swear by. To think that the government or the "new world order" or whatever can pull the wool over the eyes of the entire scientific community on a very scientific issue is simply stupid. I understand that the issue has become politicized, but I know many scientists personally, who have decades of experience, who understand the workings of the scientific community and where funding comes from, and who have gotten their hands dirty doing research relating to global climate change. They pretty much all agree that climate change is a very real and very important issue. There are abundant well-researched examples of the impact human activities can have on global scales. Whether or not CO2 is the most important thing going on right now (overpopulation is sort of the atavistic problem), industrial emissions are not anywhere close to benign.

Marm Grates Elmer RIP Lex

nice

hahaha

If this is directed at me, I can only say I have responded to certain comments with the same level of respect given to me. That is, none. It might clarify to note that I try to speak from a more detached and, hopefully, objective vantage point (I understand the problems inherent in this.) I don't hold many "beliefs" (yeah yeah yeah) and it is difficult for me to express adequate respect for those who do. Some arguments in crossfire are to me more a matter of factual accuracy than arbitrary "belief" or preference. I suppose this is not true for others. Of course, I recognize that this is the internet and I'm on here to dick around; I often come across much more serious than I intend when writing. I don't really care, this is the way I learned to write, I think it lends to more forceful expression of opinion and there is some value in that.

Haha, it's not like that man. I'm not trying to make you mad, I just don't think you should take this shit too seriously. If it really bugs you, I'll leave you alone. I've been coming to this site for quite a long time and I've always looked at crossfire. You often come off as fanatical and unreasonable. Paranoid, too. I'm not the only one who sees it that way. A reason for this is you seem unable to accept criticism. For example, in the thread about "Obama's climate czar," I recognized that Holdren's ideas regarding overpopulation, while eccentric, do not appear as inhuman and "insane" as you were presenting them to be. The article you posted, upon further inspection, appeared highly biased. Your response (in addition to angry-sounding negaprops) was to call me a "fruitcake" and decide my ideas were "eugenicist" and "malthusian." This shows a lack of respect for my reasoned opinion and a tendency to lump other people's thoughts into these pre-defined belief systems. I form opinions on these sort of things in a case-by-case manner, and believe the different sides of an argument both have valid points and the truth is often very difficult to define. It is impossible for me to respond to someone who holds such an extreme viewpoint (i.e., "Obama's Climate Czar is fucking insane") and then assumes immediately that I am a proponent of the opposite extreme viewpoint (i.e., die-hard eugenicist). Things are not so black and white. This is a criticism. I'm not trying to insult you or troll you here, I'm not sitting here pissed off, just perplexed; I will consider your response. Again, that is the extreme version of what I said. You make a lot of comments about how certain policies/politicians are "fascist" and/or "socialist." I find this unrealistic and polarizing. I consider the evidence you present and often find it seriously lacking or taken out of context. Based on the definition I posted many of your ideas do seem delusional. I didn't vote in the last election. I do think Obama is a much smarter president than Bush, and will prove to be a better leader. I don't think he's perfect, and I'm sure he will make plenty of mistakes. I do like that he appears to be less beholden to ideologies and is willing to consider new ideas. We will see. I personally find politics kind of shallow, but political topics can sometimes be interesting. The type of assumption you're making here is what alienates your ideas from many people in crossfire, myself included.

I've planned on taking this before but always ended up either getting a ride or finding a place to crash. What'd I miss out on?

Don't get it twisted, after I tried participating in a few of your threads you made it clear you aren't here to debate, you're here to push your paranoid agenda. Thus trolling you seems much more fruitful and entertaining, after all this is the internet and it's srs bzns. I like to read through threads in crossfire; but you make like 25% of posts on this forum so I often find myself reading some delusional BS from you. A quick dismissive troll image is much easier and more appropriate, since you have shown that you won't take thoughtful replies into consideration anyway (unless they agree with you.) It's funny to read your reactions and you provide a fascinating window into a delusional, neurotic mind. Thanks for the laughs doggie.

Farolito & bacon dogs are the shit (and will make you shit). San Francisco is cool but I don't think it's worth the cost to live out there, I still like the east bay more.

I've tried to have a reasoned debate with casek in crossfire. This is what happens: he sends me nega-props telling me to "get banned." Then, without directly responding to my argument, he reiterates his own opinion while questioning my humanity and common sense. Fox news tactics all the way. Then there might be a few more articles of questionable relevance thrown in. He has no capacity to consider other opinions or take criticism seriously. I can't get mad at it though, because I get the feeling dude has some serious psychological issues. Reading threads in crossfire is like a clinic on psychotic delusions. Actually a glance at the wikipedia article on delusions pegs it very accurately: There you go. It's fascinating.

^ Well said. I think that's what keeps most people on this forum out of crossfire. It's actually kind of fascinating to me.

^

bump that CTM roller

No. If you're just referring to Obama cabinet scientists...still no. From my experience scientists tend to be very pragmatic people, and Obama's science advisers are well qualified.

Hey, you aren't allowed in this thread, it's the no-Smarts club.

^why you gotta insult dems like that?!

This kinda happened to me at a chick's house the next morning. Her friend was dropping off a couple little kids to get babysat and as I sat on the toilet attempting (unsuccessfully) to quietly defuse the methane bomb in my ass I could hear this little 2 year old kid outside laughing and saying "the MAN makes funny noises!" Luckily he then proceeded to try and wrestle the cat, so I came out to him crying and the ladies doting over him instead of an awkward silence. Crisis averted. I also ripped a few pretty loud a couple times while I was half-conscious in bed the night before though, that was kinda awkward.

Nope; it's better to just ignore it and troll people.

take this shit to crossfire

I mentioned the Rama series. The 2001 series is good too, but I still like Asimov more than Arthur C. Clarke.

I just checked my faucet, it's stable. Better call Australia and see which way their toilets are flushing.