4merper4mer

Ok cool. So we're clear I never contended that sitcom math applied to the unobservable universe although my gut tells me it does. I do not think it applies to other dimensions or to parallel universes. I do do think it very much applies to the past which is why I say no societies ever existed in the observable universe.

To be fair to the Apollo mission, they were just following in the footsteps of history. Villains like Galileo and Newton contributed to the stifling of women and it would be just and right to strike them from the annals of history.

Are they mad about the stolen billions or the group chat memes?

He should be like everyone else and work behind the scenes to have the government seize control of every aspect of our lives. Decorum>reality.

They should also be fired if they have surreptitiously used their jobs as cover for their actual identities as a team of serial killers. Let me ask, if the Bills were to go 6-10 but do so after all 53 guys are injured and out for the year after the first preseason game will your opinion stay the same? I know mine will not change. If they are a team of serial killers they should be fired regardless of any excuse they have.

Well, he's bald and Gene Frenkle has been MIA for a while.

If she became naturalized by banging her brother doesn't that invalidate it?

So we may have just failed to communicate and we actually agree on 2.things: 1. There are no intelligent alien societies, nor have there ever been, in a the observable universe. 2. There is a part of the universe that is unobservable. Although the there is no evidence that it would be anything other than an extension of the known, it is impossible to know for sure and will likely remain that way.

It indeed doesn't prove anything. It demonstrates something. Its product is zero.

Your contention is that the size of the observable universe is too small a sample size to detect trends? That's a unique perspective. Which variable in Drake do you believe to be wrong? I'm not asking you to assign values to any of the variables, just point out which ones don't belong and/or what other variables need to be added.

That was less than specific. I don't recall you showing anything about the calculations in any post. Did you use numbers or feelings? Can you link it? The equation is meant to produce a very high number at the end. The equation itself flows very well logically. It should help your case. Try filling in some numbers to see what you get. Unfortunately a billion times a billion times a billion times a billion times zero is......zero.

You don't need to lie. No one has "picked through" my calculation that the sitcom math equation ends in =0 with anything but emotion. There has been nary a number used to refute that. There have been a lot of words and bluster and emotion as people hold on to their wishes....but no numbers. There is every opportunity to pick through my evaluation and show that it is wrong. Why do you think that hasn't been done? Why haven't you done it? I suspect, but don't know, that people have looked at it and given up. Have you? I agree that insults of posters aren't necessary. Insulting a post is different as sometimes it can help get the point across. Sometimes the line between the two is blurry and can get crossed. It's not my intent to cross it.

I was really more going for alliteration than insult. I admit it has been frustrating to see you write things implying I claim to know everything about the universe. I claim no such knowledge and never have. Your implication that I've made this claim is also an insult of sorts so glass houses dude. Have you once bothered to objectively look at the sitcom math equation in an effort to understand what I'm saying? Be honest. I doubt you have because if you had you'd have come back at me with something specific either agreeing or attempting to refute. Having a general conversation is fine and fun but it is ok to get specific too. That's why they call it a conversation. I said something you didn't want to hear and pointed to objective mathematical demonstrations of that. You didn't even bother to look and told me I don't know anything. I'm not insulted by that but some thinner skinned people might be. I do view it as short sighted on your part to not even bother to look. Pinhead was probably out of line but "pinheaded partner" sounded better than "shortsighted partner". Maybe "shortsighted sidekick" is a compromise.

Lucky for the squad they didn't let a like minded white commie like Swallwell in. That would prevent at least part of their ability to be offended. I have no idea of your ethnicity, gender, religion, race or whatever else is on the red hair ring offensive list. You're a commie. Please let me know if that was racist.

Is it almost the twelfth?

Sitcom math is the only necessary formula. It is a relatively simple equation as well. If undertaken with objectivity and with a little thought about each component it is inevitable that the solution to it is zero. It is clear that you and your pinheaded partner either have issues with objectivity, math or both. Objectivity seems to be the most likely culprit. Note that sitcom math applies only to our universe, not to other dimensions or possible parallel universes. It is clear from the formula that our universe is extremely unlikely to harbor other intelligent life. Divert to the parallel if you'd like but be aware that it makes you look foolish.

Given I don't have a formula, it can't mean much can it? I do understand the components of sitcom math and the solution to that equation. Spoiler alert: the end is "= 0"

Dude, take a step back and get a semblance of a grip. I have no equation. It is called Drake's equation and was used on a sitcom to convince morons that aliens are likely to be out there, which they are not.

Dude if it's real it bolsters sitcom math. Just take a minute, look at the formula Sheldon made famous, think using your brain instead of your emotions, and rid yourself of that nagging feeling that you're being silly.

Dude. You're lost. If it is a fake commie ploy then it does nothing either way. If it is real, it is another few gallons in the ocean of evidence that there is nothing out there. The concept isn't really hard to grasp once you let go of your wishful thinking.

Why didn't McCarthy include #nannynannywoowoo in his tweet? Pelosi can reply telling him she is rubber and he is glue.

If true and not crap made up by commies, it's further evidence of the conclusion already reached by sitcom math. Personally I'd like to know how they identify individual photons and know which ones teleport? Do they give them numbers or names? I think they should name them, but like race horses, not like people. They could have named this one "Bore's Light" because it doesn't pass the smell test and reading that article is a cure for insomnia.

No

They are having an argument over the process to determine which group is a bigger bunch of jerky-jerks. Somehow the group of lesser jerky-jerks perceives they will gain a political advantage. Meanwhile, in the real world, actual things happen while they argue over which strongly worded letter should be sent to whom. None of this charade has a basis in anyone giving a crap about the actual content of a tweet or the rhetoric from the other side that preceded it. It's all about them and their own maneuvering for power as usual. They can get bent.

They're all so hung up in their own self importance that it's scary.