jakee 1,559 #101 May 29, 2013 kallend I acknowledge the possibility that every molecule of oxygen in your home will diffuse to a room that is unoccupied, leaving the occupants of the other rooms to suffocate. The probability of this is quite low, however, so you needn't worry too much. I don't believe it will happen. But if the government took all the vacuum cleaners in the house into one room and turned them on they could encourage the natural diffusive properties of the oxygen and successfully kill the unsuspecting family (for some reason).Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #102 May 30, 2013 She's gone from suck to blow!Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ayevee8toryear 0 #103 May 30, 2013 QuoteHow's that working out for you? Well some people actually decided to provide valid arguments, rather than silly old name calling... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #104 May 30, 2013 ayevee8toryearQuoteHow's that working out for you? Well some people actually decided to provide valid arguments, rather than silly old name calling... But not you.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #105 May 30, 2013 Still waiting for you to offer any "valid arguments". The video you posted is no more evidence than the crazy big haired guy that history channel always gets to talk about aliens. He's been on TV! It just be true! witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ayevee8toryear 0 #106 May 30, 2013 QuoteBut not you. I have called some names, but with an argument. Silly comparisons of irrelevant subjects do not equal a valid argument in my books, they are a typical straw man tactic. The subject itself should be discussed if concrete conclusions are to be made. My argument is simply that it is impossible to determine that weather warfare is; 1, Impossible 2, Not being done already The Geo-Engineering thing also is encompassed in all this, but everyone seems reluctant to acknowledge its presence or discuss it even though I have mentioned it. My guess is that most of you will probably have to Google the term to understand what it means, before replying... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ayevee8toryear 0 #107 May 30, 2013 Semantics much? You provide a weak argument for the impossibility of weather weapons. That is your stance isn't it? Or are you simply all about picking someones delivery of an idea apart? Is it me, or is it the point you are arguing against? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ayevee8toryear 0 #108 May 30, 2013 QuoteStill waiting for you to offer any "valid arguments". The video you posted is no more evidence than the crazy big haired guy that history channel always gets to talk about aliens. He's been on TV! It just be true! It is called Operation Popeye, look it up. The reason I showed that particular presentation, is because it pointed out the fault in Quade's argument. Quote"You can safely put this moron into the category of tin-foil hatters. " Quite a hypocritical statement when the accused actually has more knowledge than him on the subject. The proceeding conversation from there was no more than a bunch cognitive bias in the form of childish name calling. It was clear to me from that point that no one in the conversation had a clue of what they were actually talking about. There are plenty of sources for this information if you re willing to look for it. Do you ever research anything or just keep yourself busy replying to as many threads as possible? Are you also going for your green belt in bullshit artist? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #109 May 30, 2013 ianmdrennanShe's gone from suck to blow! I'm disappointed in you lot. That was a classic cinematographic quote.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #110 May 30, 2013 ayevee8toryearQuoteStill waiting for you to offer any "valid arguments". The video you posted is no more evidence than the crazy big haired guy that history channel always gets to talk about aliens. He's been on TV! It just be true! It is called Operation Popeye, look it up. The reason I showed that particular presentation, is because it pointed out the fault in Quade's argument. I did look it up, again. I still don't see any scientific evidence or evaluation of results. Most of it is conspiracy theorist tin foil hat moron level discourse. The rational pieces all concur that there is no available valid results data. There was one swag from DIA, but it's well established that their numbers were just throwing out what administration wanted to hear. Do you have any verified numbers?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,064 #111 May 30, 2013 >My argument is simply that it is impossible to determine that weather warfare is; >1, Impossible It's impossible to know whether weather warfare is impossible? No, it's quite possible to know that, actually. >2, Not being done already They've tried it - and generally failed miserably. It's worked as well as, say, cold fusion or that pill that turns water into gasoline. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,559 #112 May 30, 2013 Quote Semantics much? No. Language has meaning - deal with it. You are trying to hold at least two very different positions as best suits whatever challenge you're replying to at that moment. It doesn't work like that. Quote You provide a weak argument for the impossibility of weather weapons. I'm not arguing for the impossibility of them, that's a fools errand. I'm saying that it is perfectly reasonable to call Alex Jones a tin-foil hatted, conspiracy theorist, screw loose, off the wall nutjob moron for saying that the US government can create or manipulate tornadoes and is using them against US towns. Quote Is it me, or is it the point you are arguing against? Apart from what you have said in this thread on this subject I don't know anything about you. So yeah, it's the point I'm arguing against. (OK, so I've just checked: The only other time we've spoken was in a thread where you were telling people that weather manipulation is real and that HAARP is changing the jetstreams. so, all you're saying is that weather weapons are not necessarily impossible? Pull the other one mate)Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #113 May 30, 2013 Remster***She's gone from suck to blow! I'm disappointed in you lot. That was a classic cinematographic quote. I laughed - it's gone to Plaid.Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #114 May 30, 2013 Oh HAARP... ...honestly who doesn't love HAARP? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #115 May 30, 2013 Remster***She's gone from suck to blow! I'm disappointed in you lot. That was a classic cinematographic quote. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXOAc5yt218... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #116 May 31, 2013 ayevee8toryearQuoteHow's that working out for you? Well some people actually decided to provide valid arguments, rather than silly old name calling... Was I not talking about the issue at hand enough? Funny since you responded to the posts that included name calling and conveniently ignored the last one from me which required you to answer a few questions about the issue we're hashing out.Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,064 #117 May 31, 2013 >Was I not talking about the issue at hand enough? I think perhaps you were talking too authoritatively about the issue at hand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ayevee8toryear 0 #118 May 31, 2013 QuoteI did look it up, again. I still don't see any scientific evidence or evaluation of results. Most of it is conspiracy theorist tin foil hat moron level discourse. The rational pieces all concur that there is no available valid results data. There was one swag from DIA, but it's well established that their numbers were just throwing out what administration wanted to hear. Do you have any verified numbers? Do I need to? I have shown that is is more than likely that this is the case, the mission was considered successful. Do you want me to go back in time, set up some WX stations and compare the data from subsequent years? There is probably a very good reason they do not have verifiable results data. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ayevee8toryear 0 #119 May 31, 2013 QuoteThey've tried it - and generally failed miserably. It's worked as well as, say, cold fusion or that pill that turns water into gasoline. And you are privy to all information known to man, how? You going for your third dan? How about you use some data rather than pretending you are some higher form of life. How about geo-engineering Mr.? I suppose that is just a tin foil hat conspiracy theory as well? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ayevee8toryear 0 #120 May 31, 2013 QuoteYou are trying to hold at least two very different positions as best suits whatever challenge you're replying to at that moment. It doesn't work like that. ha ha, So I cannot claim to believe it is impossible to determine something is impossible, while also having a personal opinion that the thing I think is actually possible is likely? You are not making sense, you are not addressing the issue, you are nitpicking. Quote I'm saying that it is perfectly reasonable to call Alex Jones a tin-foil hatted, conspiracy theorist, screw loose, off the wall nutjob moron for saying that the US government can create or manipulate tornadoes and is using them against US towns. You know about operation Northwoods? Never underestimate the abilities and the audacity of the power hungry. Quote Apart from what you have said in this thread on this subject I don't know anything about you. So yeah, it's the point I'm arguing against. QuoteI'm not arguing for the impossibility of them, that's a fools errand. I agree, Quade and Billvon are foolish in their opinions. Great, we agree on something after all. What were we talking about again? LOL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #121 May 31, 2013 QuoteQuoteI did look it up, again. I still don't see any scientific evidence or evaluation of results. Most of it is conspiracy theorist tin foil hat moron level discourse. The rational pieces all concur that there is no available valid results data. There was one swag from DIA, but it's well established that their numbers were just throwing out what administration wanted to hear. Do you have any verified numbers? Do I need to? If you want anyone to take you seriously, yes. That's how science works. QuoteI have shown that is is more than likely that this is the case, the mission was considered successful. You've shown no such thing. QuoteDo you want me to go back in time, set up some WX stations and compare the data from subsequent years? There is probably a very good reason they do not have verifiable results data. Oh, so you're taking fashion tips from the conspiracy nuts? Ton foil hats are all the rage this season.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #122 May 31, 2013 ayevee8toryearHow about you use some data rather than pretending you are some higher form of life. Ok that actually made me laugh out loud. How can you ask others to provide data when you won't? How can you ask others to refute your claims when you do nothing to support them? QuoteHow about geo-engineering Mr.? That's called science. It's verifiable and repeatable.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,064 #123 May 31, 2013 >And you are privy to all information known to man? Nope. Just rational. >You going for your third dan? At this point I know about eight dans, so the next one would be my ninth. >How about you use some data rather than pretending you are some higher form of life. Actually, the person making the extraordinary claim is the one who has the obligation to provide the data. >I suppose that is just a tin foil hat conspiracy theory as well? If someone claims "geoengineering is possible" then no, that's not tinfoil-hat territory. If someone claims "geoengineering causes AIDS" then yes, that would be tinfoil-hat territory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ayevee8toryear 0 #124 May 31, 2013 QuoteOk that actually made me laugh out loud. How can you ask others to provide data when you won't? How can you ask others to refute your claims when you do nothing to support them? LOL, so stating that something is not necessarily impossible requires data to prove and claiming it is, doesn't? QuoteThat's called science. It's verifiable and repeatable. And If I suggest chemtrails, were a part of Geo-engineering, then would that position change? Are you concerned with the use of Geo engineering and do you think that technology could be used for evil? Can you provide data for the verification of the results of Geo-engineering and were the results positive or negative in regards to the effect on the environment? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ayevee8toryear 0 #125 May 31, 2013 QuoteNope. Just rational. Then how was that conclusion met using your Rationale? QuoteActually, the person making the extraordinary claim is the one who has the obligation to provide the data. Correct, claiming something is impossible, is quite an extraordinary claim indeed. These type of conclusions require data for sure. Where is it? QuoteIf someone claims "geo-engineering is possible" then no, that's not tinfoil-hat territory. So how can saying weather weapons are also possible be any different? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Kennedy 0 #122 May 31, 2013 ayevee8toryearHow about you use some data rather than pretending you are some higher form of life. Ok that actually made me laugh out loud. How can you ask others to provide data when you won't? How can you ask others to refute your claims when you do nothing to support them? QuoteHow about geo-engineering Mr.? That's called science. It's verifiable and repeatable.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,064 #123 May 31, 2013 >And you are privy to all information known to man? Nope. Just rational. >You going for your third dan? At this point I know about eight dans, so the next one would be my ninth. >How about you use some data rather than pretending you are some higher form of life. Actually, the person making the extraordinary claim is the one who has the obligation to provide the data. >I suppose that is just a tin foil hat conspiracy theory as well? If someone claims "geoengineering is possible" then no, that's not tinfoil-hat territory. If someone claims "geoengineering causes AIDS" then yes, that would be tinfoil-hat territory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ayevee8toryear 0 #124 May 31, 2013 QuoteOk that actually made me laugh out loud. How can you ask others to provide data when you won't? How can you ask others to refute your claims when you do nothing to support them? LOL, so stating that something is not necessarily impossible requires data to prove and claiming it is, doesn't? QuoteThat's called science. It's verifiable and repeatable. And If I suggest chemtrails, were a part of Geo-engineering, then would that position change? Are you concerned with the use of Geo engineering and do you think that technology could be used for evil? Can you provide data for the verification of the results of Geo-engineering and were the results positive or negative in regards to the effect on the environment? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ayevee8toryear 0 #125 May 31, 2013 QuoteNope. Just rational. Then how was that conclusion met using your Rationale? QuoteActually, the person making the extraordinary claim is the one who has the obligation to provide the data. Correct, claiming something is impossible, is quite an extraordinary claim indeed. These type of conclusions require data for sure. Where is it? QuoteIf someone claims "geo-engineering is possible" then no, that's not tinfoil-hat territory. So how can saying weather weapons are also possible be any different? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
