P.K. Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Sorry Lxxx but you and your "facts" are an oxymoron along the lines of "Caring Conservatism" and similar. Frankly it seems you wouldn't know a "fact" if it sat on your face.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted May 22, 2012 Author Share Posted May 22, 2012 Sorry Lxxx but you and your "facts" are an oxymoron along the lines of "Caring Conservatism" and similar. Frankly it seems you wouldn't know a "fact" if it sat on your face.... I'm not quoting facts, I am referencing the opinions of nuclear physicists and other nuclear experts ( as well as experts on radiation poisoning) on the subject of a nuclear accident. Is that really so hard to comprehend? Clearly it is. I rest my case. As someone who has friends living in Tokyo I do know for a fact that Dr Sircus' opinions are listened to and followed by many people at the moment as they come to terms with trying to combat the radiation that is enveloping the nation daily.To them, and increasingly many others in the region, it is a matter of life and death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 I agree, vitally important. If it's all the same to you Lxxx as far as Fukishima is concerned I think I'll stick to the information put out by accredited physicists and not the likes of "Dr" (hah!) Mark Sircus who isn't a doctor at all but an acupuncturist. An acupuncturist mouthing off about nuclear physics and Lxxx believes them - says it all about both of them really.... He's giving his opinion after quoting the opinions of nuclear physicists and other nuclear experts on the matter. But then again I wouldn't expect someone of your intellect to grasp that fact.... why let the facts get in the way of a smart assed comment . The fact that he is a well respected expert on alternative medicine, and radiation poisoning, I suppose doesn't register on your very blinkered view of the world either, therefore, on balance, your opinion doesn't concern me in the least so crack on with the jokes and keep us all amused. Actually, most of the people he quotes he either quotes incorrectly (implies something they didn't say, misses out where they say that it's not actually an issue) the other people he quotes are well known to be conspiracy theorists who nobody in the scientific community has faith in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I'm not quoting facts The above is the only part of your post you actually got right. Better than none at all I suppose.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted May 23, 2012 Author Share Posted May 23, 2012 I'm not quoting facts The above is the only part of your post you actually got right. Better than none at all I suppose.... A comedian as well as an intellectual... You're wasted on internet forums, you should set up in partnership with your mate Jim, you'd clean up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted May 23, 2012 Author Share Posted May 23, 2012 I'm not quoting facts The above is the only part of your post you actually got right. Better than none at all I suppose.... A comedian as well as an intellectual... You're wasted on internet forums, you should set up in partnership with your mate Jim, you'd clean up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted May 23, 2012 Author Share Posted May 23, 2012 I agree, vitally important. If it's all the same to you Lxxx as far as Fukishima is concerned I think I'll stick to the information put out by accredited physicists and not the likes of "Dr" (hah!) Mark Sircus who isn't a doctor at all but an acupuncturist. An acupuncturist mouthing off about nuclear physics and Lxxx believes them - says it all about both of them really.... He's giving his opinion after quoting the opinions of nuclear physicists and other nuclear experts on the matter. But then again I wouldn't expect someone of your intellect to grasp that fact.... why let the facts get in the way of a smart assed comment . The fact that he is a well respected expert on alternative medicine, and radiation poisoning, I suppose doesn't register on your very blinkered view of the world either, therefore, on balance, your opinion doesn't concern me in the least so crack on with the jokes and keep us all amused. Actually, most of the people he quotes he either quotes incorrectly (implies something they didn't say, misses out where they say that it's not actually an issue) the other people he quotes are well known to be conspiracy theorists who nobody in the scientific community has faith in. What defines a 'conspiracy theorist' then brains? Enlighten us with your knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I agree, vitally important. If it's all the same to you Lxxx as far as Fukishima is concerned I think I'll stick to the information put out by accredited physicists and not the likes of "Dr" (hah!) Mark Sircus who isn't a doctor at all but an acupuncturist. An acupuncturist mouthing off about nuclear physics and Lxxx believes them - says it all about both of them really.... He's giving his opinion after quoting the opinions of nuclear physicists and other nuclear experts on the matter. But then again I wouldn't expect someone of your intellect to grasp that fact.... why let the facts get in the way of a smart assed comment . The fact that he is a well respected expert on alternative medicine, and radiation poisoning, I suppose doesn't register on your very blinkered view of the world either, therefore, on balance, your opinion doesn't concern me in the least so crack on with the jokes and keep us all amused. Actually, most of the people he quotes he either quotes incorrectly (implies something they didn't say, misses out where they say that it's not actually an issue) the other people he quotes are well known to be conspiracy theorists who nobody in the scientific community has faith in. What defines a 'conspiracy theorist' then brains? Enlighten us with your knowledge. Can't you google "Conspiracy Theorist" yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted May 23, 2012 Author Share Posted May 23, 2012 I agree, vitally important. If it's all the same to you Lxxx as far as Fukishima is concerned I think I'll stick to the information put out by accredited physicists and not the likes of "Dr" (hah!) Mark Sircus who isn't a doctor at all but an acupuncturist. An acupuncturist mouthing off about nuclear physics and Lxxx believes them - says it all about both of them really.... He's giving his opinion after quoting the opinions of nuclear physicists and other nuclear experts on the matter. But then again I wouldn't expect someone of your intellect to grasp that fact.... why let the facts get in the way of a smart assed comment . The fact that he is a well respected expert on alternative medicine, and radiation poisoning, I suppose doesn't register on your very blinkered view of the world either, therefore, on balance, your opinion doesn't concern me in the least so crack on with the jokes and keep us all amused. Actually, most of the people he quotes he either quotes incorrectly (implies something they didn't say, misses out where they say that it's not actually an issue) the other people he quotes are well known to be conspiracy theorists who nobody in the scientific community has faith in. What defines a 'conspiracy theorist' then brains? Enlighten us with your knowledge. Can't you google "Conspiracy Theorist" yourself? The phrase is bandied about so often these days it doesn't actually define anything anymore. It's such a catch all phrase that it really doesn't carry any relevance as a descriptive term. So as someone who frequently uses the word on these forums a lot, I'd like you to explain what you think one is as you're the brains on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 As far as I know I've only used the phrase a couple of times, but if we take the person in question as an example: "Moret declared on March 21, 2011 that the "Japan earthquake" and "accidents" that occurred March 11, 2011, were deliberate acts of tectonic nuclear warfare. She claimed further that the "attack" was carried out using HAARP technology by the CIA, the US Dept of Energy, and BP on behalf of London banking interests." So, someone who believes that an event was masterminded deliberately by the Government and or other Companies to the benefit of the Government/Other Companies whilst attempting to appear under the guise of a natural disaster or otherwise "normal/natural" event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 One of the great things about the net is that should you have a passionate need (no matter how irrational that need may be) to beat a particular drum for whatever reason, you will always find an "expert" with qualifications on something to agree with you, reinforcing your point of view. This is especially the case in obscure technical subjects where the majority of readers (including the drum beater) might not have enough knowledge of the subject to be able to sort wheat from chaff. This thread and the great fluoride debate of a year or two ago illustrate this fabulous technique in action. There are a lot of nutty professors out there wanting a bit of fame and they maybe don't even need to agree with their postulations as long as it gets them the attention they crave. Funny old world innit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 He's giving his opinion after quoting the opinions of nuclear physicists and other nuclear experts on the matter. But then again I wouldn't expect someone of your intellect to grasp that fact.... why let the facts get in the way of a smart assed comment . The fact that he is a well respected expert on alternative medicine,and radiation poisoning, I suppose doesn't register on your very blinkered view of the world either, therefore, on balance, your opinion doesn't concern me in the least so crack on with the jokes and keep us all amused. With respect Lxxx, he must have a brain the size of a planet. I made a comment a few pages back I feel I need to say again. This is just my opinion of course, but I wonder if anyone else agrees with me.. Within Asia, Japan is a slightly unliked country. To this day, Japan still refuses to accept what they done to their neighbours during the second world war was wrong. It's a "face" thing. You just need to look at the North-South Korean thing to see that Asian people do not forgive for losing face. How can there possibly be a conspiricy when the entire Far East look for any excuse there is to jump on the "let's have a go at Japan" bandwagon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 This thread and the great fluoride debate of a year or two ago illustrate this fabulous technique in action. There are a lot of nutty professors out there wanting a bit of fame and they maybe don't even need to agree with their postulations as long as it gets them the attention they crave. Let's be clear here: The fluoride debate was about some people trying to influence govt to medicate the water supply. It would have been like adding nutrients to the water because some people do not eat properly. Govts would be much better spending the money encouraging healthy eating and more time outdoors in the sunshine. Meanwhile let's have less chlorine too. Perhaps the only positive of the Japanese nuclear catastrophe will be that it is now going to be much more politically difficult for govts and the massively subsidised nuclear lobby in other countries to implement new projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted May 23, 2012 Author Share Posted May 23, 2012 This thread and the great fluoride debate of a year or two ago illustrate this fabulous technique in action. There are a lot of nutty professors out there wanting a bit of fame and they maybe don't even need to agree with their postulations as long as it gets them the attention they crave. Let's be clear here: The fluoride debate was about some people trying to influence govt to medicate the water supply. It would have been like adding nutrients to the water because some people do not eat properly. Govts would be much better spending the money encouraging healthy eating and more time outdoors in the sunshine. Meanwhile let's have less chlorine too. Perhaps the only positive of the Japanese nuclear catastrophe will be that it is now going to be much more politically difficult for govts and the massively subsidised nuclear lobby in other countries to implement new projects. I never could understand the positive health aspects of adding a toxic hazardous chemical to the drinking supply of humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I never could understand the positive health aspects of adding a toxic hazardous chemical to the drinking supply of humans. Well right or wrong that becomes a controversial debating point. So it doesn't really work as a talking point. You'll get bogged down. So a much better way of debating this is to talk about whether one-size-fits-all solutions are ever the best approach. Or to make comparisons with whether it would be right to add vitamins or other food supplements to the water supply. Or to cut to the chase and talk about water purity. Essentially you have to counter propaganda (and people unknowingly influenced by propaganda) with concise talking points. It's what Obama would do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.