* Posts by ertdfg

7 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Aug 2010

Fatties are 'destroying the world'

ertdfg

Re: Barking professors

You can COUNT? How dare you be involved in social science work; you're not allowed and will be banned from all social science discussions forthwith.

We can't have people COUNTING around here; none of our theories would ever get published. The nerve of some people.

Climate models need revising: Droughts, heat waves not such a big deal

ertdfg

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "So, the world's climate is changing.."

Climate: When weather events back my bias and predictions.

Weather: When weather events don't back my bias and predictions.

Sorry, some people don't know the meaning you're using for these words. other people use different meaning; but from context I've learned what AGW supporters mean when they use these words.

This will probably make your statement clearer for others.

ertdfg

Re: @Andy Fletcher

If a change fits my person bias for a change I was expecting it's climate.

if a change doesn't fit (or worse goes against) my personal bias for a change I was expecting... it's weather.

Any other definitions you'd care to ask for?

Surprise Automotive X Prize winners announced

ertdfg
WTF?

Only reason

Yep, that's the only reason. People in America don't have kids, or dogs, or go to the store and need to load up more than 1-2 bags of groceries so the only possible reason is they are "terrible drivers".

thank goodness nobody buys anything larges than maybe 2 cubic feet ever that would require transport. Or should I rent a larger car for the once a week I need to go grocery shopping, and another once or twice a week when I have errands that need doing, and another time a week when I'll have passengers.

This would be great for maybe 30-50% of my driving; but then I either need two cars or a rental for half my driving. How will that help the environment?

Wikileaks publishes encrypted 'insurance' file

ertdfg

Right

"The truth does not fear investigation, lies do."

Right, and the civilians who are now outed as giving intelligence to US troops in Afghanistan can use the truth as a shield to keep the Taliban from killing them. How does that work exactly? Does the truth stop the knife from slitting your throat?

Or is the butchering and death of innocent civilians ok if it's done with the goal of harming instead of helping the US? that isn't pacifist, that's simply being on the other side.

When the outcome of your actions is the death of innocent civilians, you've lost the moral high ground, now all you're doing is helping the other side in the war. So take your "holier than thou" attitude and stuff it. This release will get more innocent civilians tortured, butchered, and murdered... but you're ok with that if it hurts America.

Why not take a good long look as what you're ok with; because I think you're no different than those you rail against. Anything, even the death of innocents, to further your cause... good job. You're at least as much a monster as those you struggle against.

ertdfg

Wha the hunh?

"Wikileaks has made enormous noises about human rights"

Ok, so in the furtherance of human rights, they released the names of civilians who helped army troops; so those civilians can be tortured and killed by the terrorists?

Clearly I don't understand what is good for human rights, and what is bad for human rights. Overthrowing a dictator = bad; torturing, butchering, and killing civilians = good. Yeah, I'm clearly confused.

Wait, maybe I've got it. Anything that might help the US = bad, anything that harms the US = good regardless of people being killed in any situation... yeah, that covers it.

Lets not call that "human rights" unless the only human right is to kill people out of hatred for America. If you're willing to have innocent civilians butchered to further your cause; I'm guessing your cause isn't "human rights"... it's furthering the butchering of various people for other goals.

ertdfg

Well of course

When you're publishing classified documentation meant to get innocent civilians in Afghanistan killed by terrorists; some people might not approve. Having insurance then is necessary.

I understand, anything to hurt America, even if innocent foreign civilians have to die to terrorists to make that happen... I get it. But some people don't think getting innocent foreign civilians killed is a good thing... you want to stop them from coming after you. You need insurance.

I'm guessing it's the trigger for a bomb. I mean he's perfectly ok with people dying to further his causes (hurting America), and getting innocent civilians killed was the whole goal of his last release; so why not?

Oh, for those who thought this guy was an anti-war pacifist; pacifists generally don't help terrorists target civilians. They're generally against killing on both sides. When you're against killing on one side and helping with the killing on the other side; that's called a participant on the side you're helping.

He's not against the war, he's just on the other side.