RE: Have to see it to believe it (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DomKen -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 6:35:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Go to the web page, read what is written there:

" Blogs / Bad Astronomy"

And theres your first clue.

The second clue would be the suggestion that everything you see in the photo is oil. The situation is bad enough without these wild-eyed far left freaks deliberately exaggerating the problem.



You realize that Bad Astronomy is simply the name Phil Plait gave to his blog because it started primarily as a debunker of various and sundry bad astronomical claims? I'm not sure what connotation you think it has.



Sanity -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 6:56:42 AM)

marshalp was trying to dispute my point that its a blog, ken. 



Louve00 -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 8:22:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Go to the web page, read what is written there:

" Blogs / Bad Astronomy"

And theres your first clue.

The second clue would be the suggestion that everything you see in the photo is oil. The situation is bad enough without these wild-eyed far left freaks deliberately exaggerating the problem.




You are getting so transparent.  Anything you don't like is automatically labeled "the left".  (You're losing your credibility with that constant accusation, already) No one suggested the whole gulf was filled with oil.  You outlined yourself, the sentence that detailed where the oil mainly was, but I'm sure you've seen pictures of the marshes and wetlands on tv and the animals (birds and one dolphin on Fla's coast covered in oil...and the dolphin died, btw).  People are getting sick as far over as Florida from the fumes of the oil and chemicals.  So to think that oil isn't spreading and reaching the shores and ruining our eco-system is rather naive of you, considering all the barrels of oil being ejected into the gulf on a continual basis.  To dismiss it as a deliberate exaggeration shows that you just don't care, or maybe don't know.  If you don't know, you shouldn't say things that make you sound so rediculous.  If you don't care, then keep revealing your true colors.

*Editted to add....and so what if it was a picture Ken took from a blog he reads.  The picture was taken from NASA.  So you wanted more proof than a "liberal" blogger and you got it.  Or is NASA a leftist, too??



Sanity -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 11:44:57 AM)


I never disputed that the oil is a problem, so try breathing into a paper bag or something.

And whats the matter with calling those of you on the far left who are pushing your far left agenda "the far left"? You should be proud of what you so relentlessly preach...

What do you want me to call you. "Progressive"?



Louve00 -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 12:07:45 PM)

I am not on the far left, but its people with logic like yours that make me think liberal is saner.  I don't live my life by right/left labeling.  And just because someone puts a picture up from NASA, on a blog called Bad Science, it wasn't ME hyperventilating into a paper bad and calling the blogger a poster from the far left, when in fact it a science blog, not a political one, posting a picture from NASA, depicting the site of the leak, the fire as it burns and so on and so forth.  Your reply to Lucy was you knew all along the Mississippi was a muddy river.  I'm not sure what you're point in bringing the Mississippi into it, when you showed yourself in a bolded highlight that the oil leak is in the gulf, not the mississippi river.  So you lost me there. 

And don't call me a progressive Sanity.  Call me Louve.  [:)]

**Editted for typos....so ok, maybe you did make me hyperventilate a little and I forgot how to spell [;)])



joether -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 12:09:00 PM)

Well, if a blog is not convincing enough, how about NASA?




mnottertail -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 12:15:29 PM)

Discover magazine bought the site called bad astronomy (and included a column in the Discover magazine as well), which USED to debunk misconceptions or faulty science regarding the known universe.

It no longer does only that.   But since it isn't dumbed down Fox entertainment, many would be unaware of how the moniker came about, and it would make no more sense to some than the moniker Sanity.



Lucylastic -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 12:16:05 PM)

I got the link to NASA from the blog/bad astronomy page
I wasnt looking that hard.
The fact you couldnt even give it more than a cursory glance and call bullshit on it simply because it was from a "left" looking site says more about your ignorance than it does anyone else, as usual, but no you have to shovel in some bluster about the mississippi and then go on to call the left wild eyed freaks exaggerating...
Still, the only person who came out looking like a wild eyed freak in  this is you


Do you feel the same as Napolitano?
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/shepard-smith/index.html#/v/4252907/did-bp-rely-on-faulty-us-data/?playlist_id=86928



Jeffff -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 12:17:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Well, if a blog is not convincing enough, how about NASA?




Are you talking about the National Aeronautical Soclialists Association?



Louve00 -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 12:22:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Discover magazine bought the site called bad astronomy (and included a column in the Discover magazine as well), which USED to debunk misconceptions or faulty science regarding the known universe.

It no longer does only that.   But since it isn't dumbed down Fox entertainment, many would be unaware of how the moniker came about, and it would make no more sense to some than the moniker Sanity.


mmmm  mmmmm  mmmmmm ....thats such a far left way of thinking dontcha know [;)]



rulemylife -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 1:44:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

If that photo were from NASA with someone reliable providing the expert analysis I would believe it, but since this is from a far left blog its questionable. There are a lot of factors that go into judging a photo such as this, like what time of day a picture is taken, what filters are used, was it photoshopped, etc.

Lets see something similar from CNN or UPI before leaping to conclusions.



Your first clue should have been reading the caption under the photo.


[image]http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2010/06/terra_oil_leak_june202010.jpg[/image]
Image credit: NASA and the MODIS Rapid Response Team



rulemylife -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 2:39:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


Do you feel the same as Napolitano?
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/shepard-smith/index.html#/v/4252907/did-bp-rely-on-faulty-us-data/?playlist_id=86928


So Napolitano says that companies used to define their own safety measures but now are "forced" to rely on the government's estimate and they cannot impose greater safety standards.  That the government is telling them how to run their companies.

He knows that is false, or at least he should unless he is being deliberately disingenuous to support his usual "government bad" rants. 

Government regulations provide minimum safety standards, there is no maximum.

BP was free to exceed those minimums at any time if it felt that was necessary.



Lucylastic -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 3:02:20 PM)

He definitely doesnt believe what he is espousing, but he is trying to convince himself and others to be dumb enough to find it plausible
I would love to have seen someone with a tude take the twat on.
Shep didnt go nearly far enough



xssve -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 4:40:00 PM)

Could get worse.



zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 5:06:55 PM)

Here's another way to put this disaster in perspective. Type your town/city name into the space provided. It shows how much land the oil would occupy if it were in your town/city http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/



Lucylastic -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 5:10:53 PM)

Holy sheepshagging shit, that is out there, I just did it over the UK,  and the great lakes......more than pretty grim, thats gobsmackingly huge



zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 5:16:18 PM)

Really does make you think doesn't it Lucy?  Montreal would be pretty much gone if it happened here.



Moonhead -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 5:18:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth

Really does make you think doesn't it Lucy?  Montreal would be pretty much gone if it happened here.

It'd put people off smoking at least.



Louve00 -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 5:20:03 PM)

Thanks for the link, zeph.  I love those interactive maps. [:)]



zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Have to see it to believe it (6/25/2010 5:23:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

Thanks for the link, zeph.  I love those interactive maps. [:)]


You're welcome Louve [:)] smooches



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875