FUTILITY

@Setanta,

Quote:

the thread is getting trolled already

The thread is being used to debate, something you always take as a personal attack . No doubt in your mind you expected everyone to say how wonderful you are .....

0 Replies

Setanta pointed out, by singling Rosbourne's post, that the topic here isn't trolls. I'm finished derailing the thread.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

So you consider all the denomination members of the "National Council of CHurches" (whatever they were called in 1946), as "LEFTIES.

I have no idea who those people are, but if I catch any of them pushing falsehoods about the A-bombings and/or surrender of Japan, I'll be sure to pounce on them.

farmerman wrote:

Also D Eisenhower, when informed of the plans to drop a bomb, QUESTIONED its necessity .

Ike was a major obstacle to progress. When he was president he would go around proclaiming that we weren't going to build any nukes bigger than about the 10-15 MT range, and then when the weapons labs tried to build bigger nukes he would undercut them by saying that they'd be making a liar out of him. No one ever told him that if he'd just keep his mouth shut and stop saying stupid things, that wouldn't be a problem for him.

He also instituted that stupid rule that nothing could be targeted with a weapon bigger than 2 MT unless the military could justify why a smaller nuke was not sufficient.

And when the military tried to buy enough nukes to ensure our ability to destroy 90% of the Soviet arsenal, Ike told them that he'd be happy with 70%. At least the military was able to overturn this last one once Ike was out of office.

farmerman wrote:

We were already fire bombing Osaka and Tokyo (etc etc) and killing more people with napalm (pwr visit) than we would with an atomic bomb. But noone seems to have been questioning the use of Napalm bomblets that essentially burn down these balsa cities in an evenings raid.

True that the napalm raids get a lot less press. But occasionally the Tokyo raid does get denounced by one of the anti-war people.

farmerman wrote:

Did the Japanese really surrener unconditionally?

No.

The Potsdam Proclamation was a list of surrender terms.

farmerman wrote:

Did the Japanese really surrener unconditionally? How come we let em keep the damn emperor??

They might have refused to surrender, making a bloody invasion necessary, had we not done so.

Also, by keeping and controlling the emperor, we were able to shape Japanese society into a peaceful democracy.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

The topic is how the in crowd should ostracize the so-called "trolls".

This thread is about shunning.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Shunning is not a good thing for a community such as ours with diverse opinions. The only reason to label someone a "troll" is to get the community to shun them. If you don't like what someone is saying, or how they are saying it, you can either ignore them, or you can answer in a reasoned way (without name-calling or personal attacks).

Let me posit the thought that "shunning" might be the virtual, cyberspace version of fighting over turf. Sort of like the Palestinians and Israelis.

If there is any validity to that analogy, then that might explain why the desire to shun seems to come mostly (on only?) from males.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

If it's all about shunning, what is your complaint? You are still posting and being read. You bring most of what you complain of on yourself.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

you kinda mix, "before and after the fact" information to reach your decisions eh?

Interesting, that Eisemhower didnt even know he was gonna be president when he made that statement about the bomb. When did he first get drafted to run?

1 Reply

A new finding in the Tiktalik and related "fishopod" findings is that the latest (and earlier) findings of Footprints in the mud of the early Devonian, bring some doubt that Tiktalik is the first of the Transitional fossils from fish to amphibians.

Science will mull over but not try to hide the fact. Im still of the " genera cluster" hypothesis, wherein a "cluster of hopeful monsters" make their appearances at a time that their derived morphologies permit. These clusters can occur within a fairly long time spread (here were dealing with about 30 million years or about 1/2 the time of the "Cambrian Explosion". So several genera , with derived features that are better adapted, get "filtered" through and others just leave fossils.

remember Brother Dave Gardner who said that

"We didnt arise from the fossils of the sorta -like neanderthal brutes who humped around the forest, NOPE , we arose from the fast little fuckers who made it back to the caves "

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

you kinda mix, "before and after the fact" information to reach your decisions eh?

Come again?

farmerman wrote:

Interesting, that Eisemhower didnt even know he was gonna be president when he made that statement about the bomb.

Would it have mattered? I'm sure the Secretary of War would still have called him an idiot.

farmerman wrote:

When did he first get drafted to run?

No idea.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

So, my question is, why do you talk to those idiots? Nothing has changed in more than a dozen years, except the names of the loons who come here. Why do you folks constantly feed these trolls? I just posted in one of the idiot threads this morning, and then, shame-faced, asked myself why i had bothered.

I won't necessarily respond to your comments, but i will read what every0ne posts here.

Although I would prefer they not be here, when life hands you lemmings, you gotta make lemming-ade. And it's fun! But then, I don't feel any respect for their intelligence, and so whatever words they may cobble together won't provoke me–I have a hard time even seeing these interactions as debate or conversation with an actual person. At best I could take pity on them, if ever they weren't so intentionally agitating

2 Replies

@thack45,

dont lose cool, you wind up merely giving them credibility by default. (If he could get Thack scruffled, he must have something worth listening to)

0 Replies

@thack45,

thack45 wrote:

. . . I don't feel any respect for their intelligence, and so whatever words they may cobble together won't provoke me–I have a hard time even seeing these interactions as debate or conversation with an actual person. . .

Well said.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

. . . I just posted in one of the idiot threads this morning, and then, shame-faced, asked myself why i had bothered. . .

Yet you returned a day later to make sure your points were understood.

A signature service for which you should be commended.

1 Reply

@neologist,

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. You appear to be referring to the "Hell" thread, which is not a thread about evolution, Einstein. What a clown you are.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I must apologize for this:

Setanta wrote:

. . . I just posted in one of the idiot threads this morning, and then, shame-faced, asked myself why i had bothered. . .

neologist wrote:

Yet you returned a day later to make sure your points were understood.

A signature service for which you should be commended.

To which you correctly replied:

Setanta wrote:

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. You appear to be referring to the "Hell" thread, which is not a thread about evolution, Einstein. What a clown you are.

Mea Culpa. I did think by "idiot thread" you were referring to the "Hell" thread. Where, In fact, rather than calling us idiots, you were only calling us petty minded fools, certainly a leap up in your estimation.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

But then there's the whole anti-evolution/creationist claptrap.

Paying attention helps, you know.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Ha! Have poked around that thread lately? I legit can't figure out what those knobs are talking about. My hat is off to the farmer man on that one

2 Replies

@thack45,

Now whad I do? You cant prove it, nobody saw me.

1 Reply

@thack45,

After all these years, it's just a bunch of holy rollers trotting out the same idiotic drivel as we saw 12 and 13 years ago (although yes, sometimes they are more opaque than usual). That's what sparked my question.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

The good lord saw. And it was sciencey.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know