An Appeal

[realisticphish]

I have an appeal for my fellow skeptical posters:

Don't feed the trolls. I would ask them to stop being disruptive, etc, but we all know that would be an exercise in futility.

So can we try to click ignore and move on? I know it's hard, but I think we're all sick of these idiots. I come here to talk to my fellow skeptics, not listen to the same inane bullshit that woos throw at us constantly. The battle ground is Health, Science, and the Dungeon, not here.

Understand, I'm not trying to be the group police or anything, you're all free to do whatever you damn well please. I think it would just make a better environment for us if these trolls were totally ignored. I've ignored pretty much every disrupter that has come in here, and it's made my online life a lot better.

And to you woos who will inevitably be filled with smugness and faux outrage that I'm "ignoring your evidence:" I don't care. I'm not here to listen to your drivel; we hear it every day, everywhere else, and this is our sanctuary.

[dropkickpa]

1. Okay

[beam me up scottie]

2. Those are getting progressively more disturbing...

:yoiks:

[dropkickpa]

9. Did I post the naked Hoff covered in puppies one yet?

I have a vast collection of Hoff pics.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Ack! No!

I have a confession to make: I had a crush on him when I was a kid.

That's when he was Brock Chancellor on Y&R.
By the time he was in Night Rider I was pretty much over it.

I'm so ashamed...

[dropkickpa]

12. Don't be ashamed!

I had a crush on him in Knight Rider.

*edited to add - I generally save them for a thread desperately in need of Hoffiness

[beam me up scottie]

14. The Hoff is pretty powerful.

You are very wise to only wield him when desperately needed.

[TZ]

15. I had a crush on him in Knight Rider myself

In fact I had pictures of him, Don Johnson and George Michael (from his Faith days) in my bedroom......

[onager]

19. You all HAVE seen "Eurotrip," haven't you?

Hassellhoff appears in a fantasy sequence, singing in German.

Just passing along the information, I disclaim all responsibility for any side effects.

Also includes get a good slagging of the Pope/Vatican.

For some reason, most of this stupid movie makes me laugh out loud.

"I cannot go to Berlin. I'm wanted for assault. And molesting a horse..."

[beam me up scottie]

48. No, but now I feel strangely compelled to rent it.

The Germans just adore The Hoff.

[realisticphish]

5. you have an... interesting photo collection

[beam me up scottie]

3. Okey doke.

Just for you :)

[TZ]

4. *sigh*

You are right.

[LeftishBrit]

6. I agree - you are right.

[cosmik debris]

7. Sounds like fun, where do I sign up?

[trotsky]

8. I'm going to tell you why I disagree... slightly.

The old "Give 'em enough rope" theory. They've obviously decided, in Bush-like logic, that it's better to fight us here than it is there (i.e., GD or the places designed for debate). So let them, encourage them, and alert on them. Enough alerts, enough warnings, enough disruptions lead to:

[cosmik debris]

10. So, let's make a deal

Try it this way for a couple of weeks. If you don't lose at least 150 lbs of ugly fat in two weeks, I'll double your money back.

[trotsky]

16. Won't that interfere with my crystals and homeopathic diet pills? n/t

[cosmik debris]

17. Not if you take fish oil supplements and eat lots of broccoli. n/t

[PVnRT]

20. Don't listen to him! Diet and exercise are just woo!

Don't you remember a certain poster's link?

[trotsky]

21. Oh, the link I'm *still* waiting for?

Heh, yeah, right. :)

[realisticphish]

13. true

i don't know, i can see that side of it as well.

[mr blur]

18. You're right - the Ignore feature is your friend.

Time to add the others in there along with the I Create My Own Reality moron.

[HamdenRice]

22. So what exactly is a troll in your opinion?

And I should first remind you that it is against DU rules to accuse other DUers for unfounded reasons of being trolls.

Is your definition of "troll" in this forum, anyone who is skeptical of things you are not skeptical of -- eg, the altruism of corporations? the veracity of the Bush administration?

It seems to me that the definition of "skeptic" that predominates here is anyone who is skeptical of things like crystal healing or homeopathy, but if anyone who is skeptical of any assertion by George W. Bush (or his minions), or the self serving advertisements of big pharma, is considered "woo woo."

I believe that skepticism of all types should be discussed here. Is that your view as well?

[trotsky]

26. Provide links, please.

Show where a regular in this group has asserted "the altruism of corporations" and/or "the veracity of the Bush administration".

You've been asked before, but never provide any proof. Making shit up again, are you?

[cosmik debris]

27. Well, that tears it. The deal is off.

Have you ever seen a child throw a tantrum in an empty room. Probably not. They only throw tantrums when people are watching. If you just turn and walk away, the tantrum will end.

The more attention you give him the longer his tantrum will last.

But it is too late now, the "double your money back" offer is off the table.

:)

[trotsky]

28. Hey, look upthread. I never agreed to the deal.

I was contemplating. I still am. :)

[cosmik debris]

29. Too late, that offer is off the table.

[varkam]

31. I do believe you just answered your own question, Hammy.

Good day. :hi:

[beam me up scottie]

23. 'scuse me, I just remembered something...

sorry, DK, I had to do it.

[TZ]

24. Heh

Bravo fellow $keptic.
BTW, DuStrange has the BEST gif of this picture..He drops in from time to time--You and Dropkickpa will love it!

[dropkickpa]

37. The crazy

optical illusion one where you feel like you're melting into his crotch? I love that one!

[Dr. Strange]

38. This one?

Or, maybe, THIS...

[dropkickpa]

39. Does it say something about us

That we both have those in our photobucket accounts?

[Dr. Strange]

40. I hope it says something like...

Great minds think alike. :D

[dropkickpa]

41. Yeah

That's it!

[realisticphish]

47. apparently

rowan atkinson has a lot goin' on

[TZ]

56. .

I knew I could count on you...And an extra gif too!:D

[beam me up scottie]

46. HA!

I just saw that, it's perfect for Hoffworthy threads!

[cosmik debris]

25. equal time for the other side of the house

[dropkickpa]

36. I Love that pic!

[Warpy]

30. I generally try to point out how they're wrong and why they're wrong

and that's it. I really do try to post the truth and walk away.

I know all sorts of people read the Health Lounge. Not answering bullshit gives it tacit approval. I won't do that. Bullshit kills.

Bullshit should always be answered here and on talk radio. The latter won't happen without the Fairness Doctrine, something that is overdue for reinstatement. The former will happen only if we take the job on.

That doesn't mean getting into the mud with them.

[cosmik debris]

Hmmmm? You asked us not to feed the trolls

And only one person needed clarification.

Hmmm?

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Evoman]

33. Absolutely.....but only until my dry ice runs out.

See, it's easy to ignore trolls when you just had some Taq enzyme delivered in a package of dry ice. There are so many fun things to do with it. One of the favourite in the lab is putting it in small eppies, then closing the lids and then tossing them like grenades. BAM. hehe.

Right now, I just put a bunch in left-overs of my warm, fizzy pop. Awesome.

But once I run out of dry ice.....then how am I supposed to distract myself long enough to ignore the trolls?

[TZ]

34. dry ice bombs....

You WOULD do that..I've always heard about that but never seen it.....Oh man, good thing you don't work here with its big chest of dry ice that sits out for communal use..the temptation would be awfully strong....:rofl:

[Evoman]

35. Oh man....it's awesome. Although you have to be careful you don't get hit by shrapnel!

I'm actually a pretty good lab worker, but I'm terrible when I get bored. DU really keeps me out of trouble, since I have a lot of wait times between experiments.

There are a lot of things around the lab to keep me entertained...dry ice. Agar. Parafilm. One time, me and a guy from another lab tried to come up with a way to suspend a coin in agar long enough for it to solidy without making it obvious how we got it in there.

A bored Evoman is a terrible Evoman. People around here have a healthy fear of me around April 1st.


On edit: I never actually use glass or other dangerous materials. If I do it, I do it in eppies, which normally don't explode...the caps just come off. The danger level is pratically zero...don't want anybody to think it's okay to make a real dry ice bomb.

[dropkickpa]

43. I can be too

I miss being in the lab, I'm stuck doing boring shit like talking to people now. Once, when the boss was on vacay, we did the elephant toothpaste thing, that was HELLA cool!

Not us, but an example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nxkMrmZepc

[Warpy]

44. Amateur

Try working in a hospital on April 1. You'll discover new and wonderful uses for all sorts of things from KY lubricant to asepto syringes to apple juice to the recently deceased.

[Evoman]

49. Ha...my poor brother gets it the worst.

This is what I did to my bro...reposted from the lounge:



I called my brother at his office, and told him that somebody called home with an urgent message, but I didn't know what the lady wanted because she didn't want to talk to me. I gave him the number to a funeral home (although he didn't know it at the time) and told him that the lady who called was named Manes....Mira Manes.

So when he called the funeral home, they answered "______funeral home." He is shitting himself because he thinks somebody died. Then they tell him he has been prank.

He calls me back, and just says, "ASSHOLE" and hangs up.

Mira Manes.....get it...hehe.....My remains.

[realisticphish]

50. haha

is your brother Moe Szyslak?

[Evoman]

51. No, but that a very accurate potrayal of his face he gets when he talks to me.

We're really close, but man I can set him off. It doesn't help that I'm really good at controlling my emotions so he can never catch on when I'm pranking him....and I never get mad when he TRIES to prank me.

[realisticphish]

52. i wish my sister took jokes well

she just gets pissed off

[Evoman]

53. My bro gets pissed off some times...but overall he has a sick sense of humour, so he is awesome.

I hate people with no sense of humour. I LOVE when people try to prank me...the more humiliating, the better...and the more fun it is to get them back.

[realisticphish]

54. i like it

as long as they can take it, as well as dish it out.

too many "pranksters" get outraged when you do anything back to them.


And saying pranksters made me laugh, because I started thinking about Christopher Walken on SNL: "I pranked him! To death! With a tire iron!"

[jberryhill]

66. "a lot of wait times between experiments."

The devil's workshop in most labs.

Floor need sweeping?

Try a Dewar full of liquid nitrogen. The Leidenfrost effect gives you a floating liquid broom.

It's hell on linoleum tile adhesive after a while, though.

[lizerdbits]

42. Do you have acetone?

Acetone + styrofoam = squishy melting.

What size eppies? If you're doing PCR I'm guessing it's those 1-2 mls. I'll have to try some with the 15ml pop top conicals when the safety officer isn't around. He just loves to wander around when we're not expecting it, but unlike some I've known he actually has a sense of humor.

[Evoman]

45. We use .5 mL tubes for PCR. Those suck for bombs cause dry ice is usually

to chunky for it.

1.5 mL tubes....perfect size for bombs. And they give you a little window of time before they explode.

[Random_Australian]

55. I so loves using logic on them.... Well, I don't come here too often

(usually in bursts) so I think that if I ka-thwack the one or two and no-one interrupts our convo, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

However, if you do think this place would be better without a particular convo I'm in, just ask and I'll stop the replying.

[TZ]

57. You are the exception to the rule as far as I'm concerned

I know *I* get great amusement value watching you play "whack a mole" basically with them...I would never ask you to stop.
Besides it seems that after a reply or two they have no clue what to say to you..except "you are WRONG!"
:rofl:

[realisticphish]

58. well

i don't see a problem with snarky ridicule, etc

It's the 50 post exchanges that keep them around, imho :shrug:

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dropkickpa]

60. Yarrr!!

[LeftishBrit]

61. You DO know that we're not all American on this forum, don't you?

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Random_Australian]

68. I'll translate for you, CanSocDem!

Silly, limpwristed LeftishBrit: "you do know we're not all American, right?"

The incredible CanSocDem: "Haha! My argument only appears to require that you believe the American system is brilliant because you use logic! My Advanced Anayltical Quantum Not-Logic leads me to conclude that the only reason the skeptics complain bitterly about the American system is because they have a crush on it!"

Silly, limpwristed LeftishBrit: "Oh noes! I am vanquished by your mighty style! Can I have your signature?"

The incredible CanSocDem: "Here, I wrote it on the paper by looking at it"

*CanSocDem then flies away a lá superman*

You might contend that I am being more insulting than making discussion (how you would do so without overdosing on hypocrisy is not yet known) but I've said "we believe you need to test the damn medicines. We don't believe the Yank System is good" so many times that I'm now in the "repeating sentence in a variety of silly voices" stage to try and get it through to you.

[beam me up scottie]

69. ROFLMAO!

"Advanced Anayltical Quantum Not-Logic"

:rofl:

[LeftishBrit]

70. I.think.you.have.said.it.all

Oh, and

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[TZ]

72. Damn.

This is one of these times that I wish I could "hear" your post..I would love to hear you "repeating sentence in a variety of silly voices"......:rofl:

Oh and a THUNK for a great "whack-a-mole" post.:)

[realisticphish]

73. if only we could rec posts

[TZ]

62. .

Thanks for the perfect retort DuStrange!

[beam me up scottie]

64. .

[cosmik debris]

65. .

:thumbsup:

[Random_Australian]

67. What does private mean? Hmmm, not sure, but I think it implies that we're taking a point of view,

assuming support for something we've arbitrarily associated with it, and then arguing against that?

Like those annoying people who confuse "companies need to test their products" with "I support Insurance Companies, Bush, and stomping on puppies"

Tish and bother! I certainly hope we don't run into such people, CanSocDem my old friend.

[CanSocDem]

71. 'Private' means.....

...Not Public.....like this public forum.

It means the private interest trumps the public interest.

Around here that means you can slam alternative health discussions by pretending they are a threat to the integrity of the chronically ill.

Of course we both know that alternative health techniques are a threat ONLY to establishment medicine.....and the private interests associated with them.

As for this 'public' expression.....who knows how long it will survive.


.

[Random_Australian]

80. Note:

Around here we slam "alternative" health treatments because there is no evidence that they work, and thus claiming they do is unethical. No, we don't support the American system of financing medicine.

My guess is that you'll interpret this post as "I love the American system yes I do!" :)

[CanSocDem]

74. OK, what then, is...

....the PUBLIC interest, when it comes to personal health.

I contend that the scientific materialism, you and your peanut gallery are promoting IS NOT in the public interest. Convince me otherwise.....

Don't babble......:P

.

[beam me up scottie]

75. Your use of the term "scientific materialism" exposes your ignorance.

You should scuttle back underneath whatever woo woo/intelligent design rock you emerged from before you accidentally learn something.

[TZ]

76. heh.

I like it that he told R_A not to "babble". R_A is probably one of the most effective/efficient communicators here..I've never met anyone less likely to "babble"..Of course if one cannot understand what a poster is saying, one may believe its "babble"....
:rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

77. I love the passive/aggressive use of smilies too.

Isn't it cute?

[TZ]

78. as a member of the peanut gallery...

I say awwwwww.......:rofl:

[dropkickpa]

92. babble

If you say it a whole lot, it's fun! Try it! babble babble babble babble babble babble babblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabblebabble

Now my head hurts!

[varkam]

79. Convince you otherwise?

It is fairly clear that you aren't open to changing your mind on, well, anything. From day one you've just been dropping by here to tell us either (a) how wrong we are or (b) how mean we are or (c) some combination of both (a) and (b).

Fact is, I don't want to convince you of anything as that would simply be an exercise in futility. I'd personally be quite content if you keep your head up your ass and continue to spew your own craptacular brand of create-your-own-reality nonsense, just so long as you do it somewhere else.

[CanSocDem]

85. Of course, you can't. (eom)

[Random_Australian]

81. Ok, how about this.

Science is good at working out whether or not testable claims are, in fact, accurate. It's kinda what we do.

"medicine x helps people recover from illness Y" is testable.

Therefore if we test something (say, homeopathic remedies, positive thinking, et cetera) and it is demonstrated to do freak-all, then it isn't particularly nice to turn around and say to patients "aha! It works just fine!"

As for the financing of the system, I like my own system thank you very much. It may not be the best, but combining public health care with caps on the prices drug companies can set works better than most systems I've seen. (Of course, it's getting problematic now that we have a riotously incompetent state government, but that is hardly a reflection on the system)

Hey, maybe you'll listen this time.

Or maybe you'll supply us with the brilliantly convincing argument that you've not the time to teach us your amazing ways.

Or claim that opposition to the American system is, in fact, support for the American system. (For anyone who doesn't get the joke, see this particular gem of understanding http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=247&topic_id=18829&mesg_id=18878 )

[TZ]

82. ..

I think the argument is that since science can't prove EVERYTHING than of course anything goes..And he thinks scientists are arrogant know it alls?!
Of course I'm just a mindless member of your peanut gallery so what do I know, you babbler you..
:rofl:

[CanSocDem]

86. Not there yet.....

"medicine x helps people recover from illness Y" is testable.

What would you test for......???? I have no problem with positive results. If it works, good for that patient.....

I have always said, it isn't the medicine, it is YOUR belief in the medicine. Of course, it's the same with the "illness"....your belief in the illness allows you to explore the variety of treatments available.

I think that Americans are bombarded with disease and cures and the threat of financial ruin. No wonder they're on edge and 'grasping for straws'......

Let me know when you understand the "public" interest in this strategy. All you seem to be offering so far is a 'price cap' on pharmaceuticals.

As a truck driver, I like amphetamines as much as the next guy, but it isn't the price that is the problem.

[Silent3]

88. So, improvements in life span and general health...

...over the past couple of centuries are mere matters of mind games we play on ourselves? All of the supposed advances in medicine, sanitation, and increased food supply are nothing more than window dressing, completely ineffective in and of themselves, but somehow seem to have worked because, what... they helped us create a better, more believable myth of why we should be living longer, healthier lives?

Is this "theory" of yours (to use a word better than your ideas deserve) falsifiable? What would you accept as contrary evidence? Or are you mistakenly proud of the fact that no matter what happens with someone's health you can always explain it away as a mental phenomena no matter what?

[Random_Australian]

90. Now that is odd. Very odd.

Don't you find it odd that two groups of people, randomly given something that, to their knowledge, is exactly the same, have different results if you put something different in the tablet?

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that it completely contradicts the notion that their belief is the key thing, because they believe the same thing (and so does everyone around them) yet get different results.

"Let me know when you understand the 'public' interest in this strategy"

Hmmmmmmmm, yet again claiming I support the American system. I don't think I need to repeat what I've said. Actually, I think confusing "hey, why don't we find out if this stuff works" with "Live under a constant threat, ye widows!" is a new one.

"All you seem to be offering so far is a 'price cap' on pharmaceuticals."

Yes. Yes I am. Because I like the sound of my own voice, I'm going to go over what I just said again, so that you can 'accidentally' mishear me in a whole new way.

I live in a country where I see the doctor for free, am treated promptly, and it is very cheap to do so. A couple of dollars for a course of antibiotics. What's more, the methods of treatment are tested to see if they work, which I like. In fact, I kinda demand it.

Or, in CanSocSpeak: "I love the American system, yes I do, 'cos my materialism tells me to"

[CanSocDem]

96. Speaking of "odd"...

"Don't you find it odd that two groups of people, randomly given something that, to their knowledge, is exactly the same, have different results if you put something different in the tablet?

Come on.....now you're just playing with me. I really don't have time to read and re-read your posts in an attempt to understand your question. I suspect they're rhetorical anyway....

I am not claiming you "support" the American system. All I said was "Let me know when you understand the 'public' interest in this strategy..."

"I live in a country where I see the doctor for free, am treated promptly, and it is very cheap to do so. A couple of dollars for a course of antibiotics. What's more, the methods of treatment are tested to see if they work, which I like. In fact, I kinda demand it."

As you should.

"Because I like the sound of my own voice, I'm going to go over what I just said again, so that you can 'accidentally' mishear me in a whole new way."

Now that you mention it....

I toss you all sorts of good stuff that you ignore because you have no response or you pick other points that are usually 'throw-aways' so you can play the class clown for your adoring fans.

Case in point:

"...like amphetamines as much as the next guy, but it isn't the price that is the problem."

This is the answer you've been asking for but let me know if it is still too complicated.OK???

.

[Random_Australian]

97. Drat, you've really got me now, CanSocDem. Except you haven't.

You said "I have always said, it isn't the medicine, it is YOUR belief in the medicine" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=247&topic_id=19115&mesg_id=19267

I said "odd, belief doesn't seem to have that much of an effect on the outcome at all. Please see double-blind trials for proof"

You said "Well, it would seem that way, except I can't be freaked reading your post"

But hell, onto the other stuff:

"Let me know when you understand the 'public' interest in this strategy..."

Hmmmmm.
A) Which strategy? Bombarding Americans with the threat of financial ruin, or your strategy of doing something-or-other? You aren't particularly clear.
B) By what standards do you test comprehension? Because I'm guessing they're along the lines of "if you agree with me, you understand"

Which is stupid in several distinct ways. (eg. it is blotting out contrary opinions for no good reasons based on a silly assumption)


"I toss you all sorts of good stuff that you ignore because you have no response"
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Because I have no response. Well, let's see:

"...like amphetamines as much as the next guy, but it isn't the price that is the problem."

...... actually, you're right. I have no response to that at all. It's supposedly some kind of answer, right? But the only thing it seems to answer is "what things does CanSocDem like?"

Why would I the hell care about something like that? How does it contradict anything I've ever said, ever?

Hell, forget about reading my posts. Do you even read your own posts?

[mr blur]

100. I admire your tenacity in arguing with this clown,

but ultimately it's a waste of time, don't you think? It's not as if he's capable of understanding what you're telling him. Or anything much, really.

[TZ]

101. Ah come on!

Don't spoil my fun.
I love watching R_A put the beat down on him..and whats even funnier..HE DOESN'T EVEN REALIZE how badly he's getting pwned over and over....:popcorn:

[Random_Australian]

103. Hey, this is a serious intellectual debate.

.... it could be. You don't know, because your thoughts are skewed by the fact that you can read!

[Random_Australian]

105. It's fascinating.

I'm just really freaking curious about things like denial, especially how it affects our reason, and this dude or dudette is awesome for studying that.

[CanSocDem]

102. Well, there you go....

That wasn't so hard was it?

"I said "odd, belief doesn't seem to have that much of an effect on the outcome at all. Please see double-blind trials for proof"

You can't draw lines around the components of this belief system. When you create your reality, you create all of it, including the evidence to support your belief. I would say that the "outcome" does indeed depend on "belief".

Unless, of course, you are looking at someone else.....whereas you would have to assume a deep understanding of that 'someones' desired 'outcome' and the beliefs that are creating their reality. That's quite common around here, eh....???

"As a truck driver(working class consumer), I like(believe in their efficacy) amphetamines(valium,chemo,steroids) as much as the next guy, but it isn't the price that is the problem(it's the existing social conditions that require me to work beyond my natural rest cycles.And the easy availability of artificial stimulants that demean the body but enrich the corporation)."

But back to your confusion about the "public interest". The strategy of producing 'pharmaceuticals' to compensate for poor life-style choices, with little concern for the patient other than getting them back to earning a wage, is hardly in the public interest. Yet, because all these people are back at work you think you are a success story.

R_A says first:

"Don't you find it odd that two groups of people, randomly given something that, to their knowledge, is exactly the same, have different results if you put something different in the tablet?"

But when called upon to exhibit clarity beyond what is usually required, he comes through like a trooper....

"...odd, belief doesn't seem to have that much of an effect on the outcome at all. Please see double-blind trials for proof"

I think you need to be reminded that I'm really only a figment of YOUR imagination.

.

[Random_Australian]

104. Ooooh! Wowsers! I like that post.

"When you create your reality, you create all of it, including the evidence to support your belief."

Well, unfortunately, you also need to deal with consistency. Like this: "I create my reality, and one property I imbue it with is that no-one can create reality"

"I would say that the "outcome" does indeed depend on "belief""

I would say that once upon a couple of hundred years ago, there was a test involving dropping a weight from the top of a moving ship. I'd also say that two groups of watchers believed very different things about what would happen.

Yet, even though we create our own evidence, one group went home scratching their heads and no longer believing. They somehow managed to not create their own evidence, and the outcome hadn't been affected by their belief.

"Unless, of course, you are looking at someone else.....whereas you would have to assume a deep understanding of that 'someones' desired 'outcome' and the beliefs that are creating their reality. That's quite common around here, eh....???"

Actually, that's not common at all. I simply created the reality that they didn't create their reality, and I didn't create mine.

So, spell it out - how do I tell the difference between them actually creating their realities, and me saying "they must must have had some beliefs that made them create it just like that"?

"But back to your confusion about the "public interest""

Confusion on my part was present. It didn't concern "public interest" much though.

"because all these people are back at work you think you are a success story"

Congratulations! You fail!

You really should have asked me about my beliefs, and checked to see if they were anything like what you declare. They aren't. Therefore, you fail.

I base the idea that medicine is good off people saying they want something changed. Did I ever say "they must use a particular system to do it, and it must involve pills"? No. I said "check your damn techniques to see if they freaking work".

"R_A says first:"
"But when called upon to exhibit clarity beyond what is usually required, he comes through like a trooper...."

Followed by some quotes of mine. I think something is missing. A point, made by you, I think, is the missing ingredient. And if you don't stop the overuse of elipsis, I'll be bringing in the commas of terror,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Like that, but even longer.

"I think you need to be reminded that I'm really only a figment of YOUR imagination."

Hmmmm. Please sort these into two groups - "figments of my imagination" and "not figments of my imagination"
- Gravity
- Aliens coming out of the sun, made of giant root vegetables that look like Jack Nicholson
- Other people

Wait, and how the hell do the police tell the difference between real and imaginary people being pushed off buildings? (My bet is they just create a reality where some random guy did it, and that guy can't remake reality)

[beam me up scottie]

106. The only other person (besides you) who could possibly decipher that post is Boojatta.

[TZ]

107. I personally am looking forward

to more "commas of terror"! In fact, I believe the Health forum should be introduced to the concept!:rofl:

Tell me this isn't one of the more enjoyable umm "debates" you've seen for awhile BMUS..granted the debating is almost all one sided...

[beam me up scottie]

108. I am in awe.

Shock and awe, not just for breakfast anymore. :D

[Random_Australian]

112. It's very fun. As the old saying goes "someone who doesn't back up their arguments

gets them ridiculed in a variety of amusing ways" ~Lao Tzu, on the local homeopath (I wish)

[CanSocDem]

109. Sigh....

"So, spell it out - how do I tell the difference between them actually creating their realities, and me saying "they must must have had some beliefs that made them create it just like that"?"

Here's one way:

People creating their own reality will just be 'doing it'. You, on the other hand, WON'T be 'doing it'...you will be sitting with your finger up your arse, waiting for something to happen to you.

Or you could be testing your own beliefs about reality by putting yourself in the eye of "random chaos" and seeing if you can keep up with those that have more than you.

The difference appears to be in perception.

Have you done psychedelic drugs??? (speaking of "perception)

"Wait, and how the hell do the police tell the difference between real and imaginary people being pushed off buildings? (My bet is they just create a reality where some random guy did it, and that guy can't remake reality)"

Relax. No matter what I post, you're still a real person. Congratulations!!

[salvorhardin]

110. How is that any different than social darwinism or prosperity theology?

Or you could be testing your own beliefs about reality by putting yourself in the eye of "random chaos" and seeing if you can keep up with those that have more than you.

How sad and ridiculous. Your conceptualization of the world bears remarkable resemblance to the all the other 10,000 idiotic inbred children of Quimby and Baker Eddy.

[Random_Australian]

111. "Only you can help fight discussions with logicals counterpoints!" says smokey

the wtf bear.

Ok, so I asked if you had any reason to think you were doing more using a set of beliefs so meaningless that they can be applied anywhere. (Approximately as meaningless as "it was gods will")

The reason, according to, that your propositions are meaningful is that I sit and wait for things to happen to me.

1) You don't know me, and you have no idea how proactive (or not) I am about my life. The fact that you had to assume things about me based on your argument doesn't really help your cause.

2) On what planet is that actually a response to my point? Grargslargax, "The Planet where Ad Hom Counts" is my guess.

Anyway, moving on.

"Or you could be testing your own beliefs about reality by putting yourself in the eye of "random chaos" and seeing if you can keep up with those that have more than you.

The difference appears to be in perception.

Have you done psychedelic drugs??? (speaking of "perception)"

Ok, now you are just being silly. Not all of us are so lucky that we require drugs to hallucinate, and some of us study things like quantum physics and HEP in order to understand the nature of reality, and some of us think about reality as a pastime and hobby.

Youe're talking to the trifecta here. If you think you're dealing with someone unused to questioning the nature of reality, you are wrong. And not only that, you are telling me that others do so more than me. Given the rather large proportion of my time that goes into such things, I'm going to have to say that you're a presumptive cock.

And as for the last couple of lines:
Me: Wait, if reality is something the each of us make, how do people like the police possibly arrest single people? (Different people could be guilty in different realities)

You: Hmmm. I'm going to have to say the reason such conclusions can be reached (and how groups of people will come to a consensus, another argument along the same lines) is because I confuse you with my ultra-intelligent super-banter. Relax, you'll stay a real person even when talking to my super-brain.

Or in other words, as I seem to need to say these things several times:

Me: Wait, if reality is something the each of us make, how do people like the police possibly arrest single people? (Different people could be guilty in different realities)

You: (A response that did not include anything to do with the problem, even tangentially, in any way)

Let's play a game. It's called "CanSocDem backs up what he says"

It's really simple. Rather than responding to this post with the usual round of yet more assertions, you actually provide some reasoning or evidence or whatever for the points you've made before.

[CanSocDem]

113. Still looking for the famous Dr.Logic....

...when this doofus shows up.


"...If you think you're dealing with someone unused to questioning the nature of reality, you are wrong."

I don't think so....otherwise you wouldn't be having so much trouble with these concepts.


“You are meant to judge physical reality. You are meant to realize that it is a materialization of your thoughts and feelings and images, that the inner self forms that world. In your terms, you cannot be allowed to go into other dimensions until you have learned the great power of your thoughts and subjective feelings.”

http://www.sethlearningcenter.org/q_create_reality.html

Who exactly, first explained "the nature of reality" to you....???? Or did you learn on your own that you couldn't fly???

[TZ]

114. Oh Dr. Logic has been here the whole time

I'm thinking your too busy looking at the "pretty lights" on the ceiling to see him...

[Random_Australian]

115. Still looking for a counterpoint to anything I've said.

Rather than the assertion (yet more assertions) that this time there is something else wrong with me.

But noooo, you've no need at all to address points made at your argument. You're SuperCanSocDem, who has no need for such trivial things, as he simply declares something to be correct.

Also, when I challenged your assumption that I am unused to questioning reality, your only reply was to say I must be wrong, because otherwise it would contradict your assumption that I am unused to questioning reality.

But it seems that even the mighty CanSoc gets tired of making assertions, so you got someone else to do them for you.

I read the Seth stuff, and it basically comes in two flavours - stuff that we have no reason to believe (ie stuff there is no evidence for) and stuff that we have no reason to believe is even meaningful. (ie bullshit/tripe/things that could mean anything)

Ok, so for your last wacky attempt at reasoning "Who exactly, first explained "the nature of reality" to you? Or did you learn on your own that you couldn't fly?" (Grammar changed to protect innocent eyes)

Wahey, both. People said things, and I thought about them. I explored the nature of reality and things that weren't, and eventually found what limits there were. Simple. People throw all sorts of interesting ideas my way, things I've never heard before. Some things, like consistent arguments, were fairly compelling, but things like religious persons simply making a crapload of assertions really weren't.

You can probably guess which of compelling/not compelling your crapload of assertions is (hint).

If you think I'm being unfair, read through your last post and try and find a place were you addressed the points about consensus and so on that I had made the last two posts.

You didn't. You just repeated your assertions.

Which is 'unconvincing' to put it politely.

[cosmik debris]

87. Ok, How about this

[Silent3]

91. It occurs to me that you and the Bush administration have a lot in common.

You're impatient with studies, and science, and facts. It's all about what you "believe" is right. Just "go with your gut" and everything will turn out just fine.

I suppose the "fact" that the Bush administration has been such a disaster has nothing to do with their rejection of "reality based" policy. I'm suppose you can explain it away the way these things are usually explained away: The Bushies must have let themselves get distracted by a few facts and doubts now and then, they must not have been "pure" enough in their beliefs or intentions.

[WoodrowFan]

83. I love Ignore

I love the ignore feature. I'd bet my list is the biggest on the DU.* Life is too short to put up with fools unnecessarily.

FOR IF IGNORE IS POWER THAN A GOD AM I!

(was that over the top? I can never tell)







*actually it's kind of a game with me now. I used to use it so I wouldn't be banned for flaming too many fools but now it's just kind of a small guilty pleasure. "Let's go to the 9-11 forum and find new twoofers to put on ignore...."

[beam me up scottie]

84. WoodrowFan!

Where have you been?

It's been a long time. :hug:

[WoodrowFan]

94. hey BMUS!

Hey BMUS, nice to see you again!!! :hi:

I'm here, usually just lurking and reading.

[beam me up scottie]

95. Me too.

Even when I take a break I usually lurk a little.

[LeftishBrit]

89. After four years of never using the feature on principle...

I now have made an exception for a couple of people; and it certainly enhances the DU experience for me, to use marketing language!

I wouldn't use it for people who simply disagree with me, even if in a few cases I find their views repugnant; but deliberate baiters are best on iggy.

[dropkickpa]

93. I'm just too damned nebby

I CAN'T abide the thought of someone saying something and me being unable, nay, FORCED, and BY ME, to not be able to read it! It would be terrible. I back page on probably 90-95% of posts I type up, otherwise I'd probably be chewing on a granite cookie right now. I think I do a good job of not feeding into it too much, though sometimes I just can't resist throwing popcorn through the fence.

[moggie]

98. You have SIWOTI Syndrome

http://xkcd.com/386/

But you're fighting it: that's good!

[dropkickpa]

99. HAH!

I like that one.