Orton's Arm Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 And you know too little of anything other than what sticks in your head to see the obvious problem with another of your master plans. Tell me, MENSA, if you enact this tax plan of yours, how will you fill up the electric car? How much more electricity will be cycled over an already stressed national grid? How will that electricity be generated - coal, oil, or gas fired plants? How will you dispose the batteries? Or is your goal to get people to drive less? Won't that pull them back to the cities, and cause infrastructure issues, since cities don't have the capacity to handle the mass population influx? Or is this a back way to your eugenics plan to kill off the stupid, so the smarties will have the world to themselves? Joe Six Pack's answer is a good one: build nuclear power plants. But even if you use fossil fuels to generate the electricity, electric cars are far more environmentally friendly than gasoline powered cars. You say my plan shouldn't be adopted because it would create added stress on the national grid. Tell me, does your concern for the national grid also influence your views of immigration? Because one obvious way to reduce the rate at which electricity demand is increasing would be to radically slow the flow of immigrants.
Orton's Arm Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 stop right there. you know he isnt capable of critical thought. An interesting comment coming from someone who isn't capable of any form of thought, whether critical or otherwise.
Alaska Darin Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 An interesting comment coming from someone who isn't capable of any form of thought, whether critical or otherwise. Translation: I like being punched in the face. Do it again.
Orton's Arm Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Translation: I like being punched in the face. Do it again. Ramius is an ignorant loudmouth. You'd be amazed at how uninterested I am in his opinion about me, or about any other topic. Wait! I take that back! I am interested in Ramius' opinions: if he thinks an idea is stupid, it's a sign I need to at least consider taking it seriously. Conversely, if he's in love with an idea, I need to start searching for whichever flaw made him fall in love with it. It's not a perfect system, because he often parrots what he's been told. He sometimes parrots correct ideas; in ways which show only a surface understanding. Darwinism comes to mind--he claims he believes in it, but he lacks the conceptual awareness to comprehend the implications of that belief. His posts about statistics have shown an equal level of intellectual shallowness. There is, in short, nothing Ramius could possibly write which I would consider anything more than the ignorant ramblings of a half-evolved Neanderthal who's still learning the rudiments of human speech. "Punch in the face." Ha! If Ramius wants to harm my face, he'll need to use his fists. In time, he may learn to use primitive stone tools. Winning a war of words is far beyond him.
GG Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Joe Six Pack's answer is a good one: build nuclear power plants. But even if you use fossil fuels to generate the electricity, electric cars are far more environmentally friendly than gasoline powered cars. Good choice, especially since the negative externality of nuclear waste is zero. You say my plan shouldn't be adopted because it would create added stress on the national grid. Tell me, does your concern for the national grid also influence your views of immigration? Because one obvious way to reduce the rate at which electricity demand is increasing would be to radically slow the flow of immigrants. Another great plan. Those guys hanging out at Home Depots sure do use up a lot of electricity. And here I thought it was people running their A/Cs in each room of the house and keeping doors open. Unless you're thinking of electrifying that fence that's being built along the border. Now, where have I seen that tried before? Wait, let me guess, you prefer natural gas ovens to electric ones as well.
Bungee Jumper Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 And yet you get so annoyed when I point out that you make unfair and inaccurate assumptions! I don't get annoyed. I get amused. You are literally the most stupid and ignorant poster I've ever seen here. You think I take you seriously?
Orton's Arm Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Good choice, especially since the negative externality of nuclear waste is zero.Another great plan. Those guys hanging out at Home Depots sure do use up a lot of electricity. And here I thought it was people running their A/Cs in each room of the house and keeping doors open. Unless you're thinking of electrifying that fence that's being built along the border. Now, where have I seen that tried before? Wait, let me guess, you prefer natural gas ovens to electric ones as well. I treated you as though you were capable of an intelligent discussion about economics and the environment. Please accept my apologies.
Orton's Arm Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 I don't get annoyed. I get amused. You are literally the most stupid and ignorant poster I've ever seen here. I once had a certain amount of respect for you. But over the last few months, it's almost like you've been trying to be as stupid as you possibly could be. Because nobody could possibly be dumb enough to believe even half the junk you've written over that time. Could they?
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Climate prize. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070210/ap_on_..._Mf1ugFrT7MWM0F
mead107 Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 I like the idea of building nuclare power plants . That will make a lot of overtime for my union brothers and me at the GE.
Bungee Jumper Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 I once had a certain amount of respect for you. But over the last few months, it's almost like you've been trying to be as stupid as you possibly could be. Because nobody could possibly be dumb enough to believe even half the junk you've written over that time. Could they? Yeah, like that statement that a single die has a true value of 3.5...oh, wait, that wasn't me. Again, if you knew anything about anything, calling me "stupid" might be of some concern to me. As it stands, it's just one more thing you're ignorant about.
GG Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 I treated you as though you were capable of an intelligent discussion about economics and the environment. Please accept my apologies. I guess you have the same answer for my last questions as you did for the casting call for America's Stupidest Woman©™
Orton's Arm Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Yeah, like that statement that a single die has a true value of 3.5...oh, wait, that wasn't me. Again, if you knew anything about anything, calling me "stupid" might be of some concern to me. As it stands, it's just one more thing you're ignorant about. This from someone incapable of a single intelligent observation about statistics, genetics, economics, or just about anything else.
Orton's Arm Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Climate prize. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070210/ap_on_..._Mf1ugFrT7MWM0F An excellent article. I hope Branson's idea succeeds.
Bungee Jumper Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 This from someone incapable of a single intelligent observation about statistics, genetics, economics, or just about anything else. Again: might mean something if you didn't persist in proving you're a dumbass.
Orton's Arm Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 Again: might mean something if you didn't persist in proving you're a dumbass. Do you honestly think you've done anything (other than your military-related posts) to earn even a small sliver of my respect? Take, for example, your treatment of the test/retest phenomenon (a.k.a. regression toward the mean). When I first described it, you ridiculed both the phenomenon and me. Then you ridiculed the Hyperstats article I used to back my position up. Then when I found articles from Stanford, the University of Chicago, et al, to back myself up, you announced you agreed with the articles. You even admitted the test/retest phenomenon (a.k.a. regression toward the mean) is real. But you still continued making fun of regression toward the mean, in threads which had absolutely nothing to do with it. You were wrong. But you couldn't admit you were wrong, now could you? For crying out loud, you didn't even have the sense to keep your mouth shut once you'd been proven flat-out wrong. You just kept slinging insults, regardless of the evidence right in front of you. Earn my respect? Ha! You've consistently shown that advancing your own viewpoint matters a lot more to you than does the objective truth.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 An excellent article. I hope Branson's idea succeeds. Wasn't that hard to find.
Bungee Jumper Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 Do you honestly think you've done anything (other than your military-related posts) to earn even a small sliver of my respect? Take, for example, your treatment of the test/retest phenomenon (a.k.a. regression toward the mean). When I first described it, you ridiculed both the phenomenon and me. Then you ridiculed the Hyperstats article I used to back my position up. Then when I found articles from Stanford, the University of Chicago, et al, to back myself up, you announced you agreed with the articles. You even admitted the test/retest phenomenon (a.k.a. regression toward the mean) is real. But you still continued making fun of regression toward the mean, in threads which had absolutely nothing to do with it. You were wrong. But you couldn't admit you were wrong, now could you? For crying out loud, you didn't even have the sense to keep your mouth shut once you'd been proven flat-out wrong. You just kept slinging insults, regardless of the evidence right in front of you. Earn my respect? Ha! You've consistently shown that advancing your own viewpoint matters a lot more to you than does the objective truth. Is there anything worth reading in this, or is it his same old ridiculous "But Stanford says so, you poopy-head!" nonsense?
/dev/null Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 I like the idea of building nuclare power plants . That will make a lot of overtime for my union brothers and me at the GE. Hukt ahn foniks werkt fer mee
Bungee Jumper Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 Hukt ahn foniks werkt fer mee He spelled it better than Bush pronounces it, at least...
Recommended Posts