NationStates Jolt Archive

First list:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7717391&postcount=2

Recent post:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7718333&postcount=43

believe that exonerates the stupidity of saying things like comparing the by-product of hydrogen burning (aka "water") to being as "clean and safe on the environment as toxic waste".

Why a separate topic: Appears to have been ignored in the other one.

I bet DLE will threaten to change the password again now.

Okay, I sat the family member that kept using Sarkarasa down and worked out a deal. I also covered the reason why topics like this should not be posted when other topics with the information on it already exist. Since I can't change the password, I'm giving her the account for the time being to see how she does on here. The IP will be the same due to a shared computer, but people who know my style of arguing should recognize a difference.

Here's evidence from the list linked to in first post:

Evidence 1: I won't address the patent lunacy of the claim "[h]ydrogen power is about as cloase to clean and safe on the environment as toxic waste". Can't debate those who won't agree to play in the arena of reality.

Evidence 2: What is it about the concept of "promotion" and "incentive" that some cannot seem to grasp? Antimatter reactors? Um...as soon as you beam back up, let me know when you've successfully tested your first Jeffries Tube. Love the "timelines-as-scientific-fact" angle too.

Evidence 3: But to continue to ramble about "[i]ntroducing levels of moisture into an area in amounts equal to at least twice that native in the area, with the norm being around ten times" which is, clearly, a product of wishfully pulling bogus stats out of one's backside isn't productive...but it is comedy gold. I love the part where the vast amounts of increased moisture (remarkable since water destroyed = water created, therefore no net new water) account for both increases AND decreases in temperature. Forget the fact that 70% of the planet's surface is covered by water and that the planet has happily been dealing with airborne water (read "fog", "rain", "snow", etc...) for a few billion years. No....THIS will cause ruination to mankind. Good lord.

Evidence 4: Pure. Comedic. Gold. Tell you what, this bantering back and forth with you obviously goes nowhere. You claim vastly superior knowledge of weather patterns and antimatter systems when, in fact, your "facts" are rubbish, your self-superior attitude is suffocating and your tedium is well....tedious. I call you on your crap about how increased moisture levels will cause both fatally hot AND cold global climactic changes...and you come back with nothing more than condescension. Sport, I've lived in both Florida and Canada. I've lived on the coast and in the mountains. I think I can speak with confidence about differing amounts of water in the air and extrapolate that to how it works with the weather. Calling you and your self-righteous, never-to-be-questioned-by-mere-mortals pseudo-facts isn't me failing the "DemonLord" test and embarassingly exposing a "nonworking knowledge of the very basics of weather patterns"...it's me calling BS.

Evidence 5: And, if you like, you can "feel free to feel insulted that I had to point this out". That's a great line BTW. Skip facts, make stuff up, get called on it...and respond with arrogant condescension. Great stuff. Listen, come back with facts (that don't smell suspiciously of originating from yer ass) and I'll be pleased to debate the merits of said facts. Make crap up and call it fact and expect to get told.

Evidence 6: Nah, I've quit messing with DemonLorgEggnog or whatever. His idiocy about "water-in-the-air" equalling global ruination is easily addressed by something called a condenser (sp?)...but why confuse facts and solutions with myths and ego trips, right?

Evidence 7: Anyway, in the interim I've done a bit more reading on other threads and I've concluded to my own satisfaction that he's basically a forum troll. I've yet to see a thread that he participated in wherein he hasn't declared himself to be the pinnacle of knowledge on practically any subject and berated anyone who disagrees with him. As elsewhere, I obey the "Do Not Feed Troll" signs when I see them.

Evidence 8: The benefits are manifest and obvious, the previously stated detractions are either minor or so blown out of proportion by a very small minority as to be considered "sour grapes". It is typical for a detractor to focus on the 1% issue to the disregard of the remaining 99%...and the volume for that detractor tends to increase in shrillness as a product of an increasing unlikeliness that the 1% issue even exists...as well as the detractor's own over-inflated self-image as "know-it-all" becomes irrelevant.

Evidence 9: But, since I know you won't stop with your "I-know-better-than-anyone-else" crap, how about you actually argue with the scientists? C'mon...won't it be fun to tell THOSE idiots that they also don't have the IQ to carry the jockstrap that swings your mighty, self-granted, omniscience to and fro? Surely a giant of your intellectual fantasy-world would be sporting tremendous mental wood after you vanquish those armchair scientists and Nobel Prize winners with your globe-spanning encyclopedic knowledge of "everything-ever-thought-discovered-or-contemplated-by-mortal-man". If that doesn't work, try some slight-of-hand with your antimatter reactor theories...that should do the trick.

Evidence 10: Once you conquer those wastrels and other undesirables feel free to come back here and I'll give you lots more. These people NEED your guidance before they all destroy my world (not your world...your world will survive because it's imaginery)! They simply CRAVE your stern scientific hand at the tiller DemonLoadEggNog! You might try tossing the terms "bumpkin", "simpleton" and "ignoramus" around as with their shakey scientific foundations for their heretical notions they might be vulnerable to such wily sci-speak trickery.

Evidence 11: Just so you know, I did, in fact, give up reading your long-winded posts. The irony of the whole bias, kettle colors and whatnot is impressive. I'm curious, do they still have those nifty mirror thingys in your world?

Evidence 12: Egad, you buffoon, of course it's flammable!

Evidence 13: If this is the best of what you have left, keep going...you're making support for hydrogen look pretty smart. And since you're a great lover of irony, the only thing you've managed to disprove is your claim to have any kind of sense...common or otherwise.

Evidence 14: [managed via responsible handling of material - status: STUPID AND DISPATCHED]

Evidence 15: I've addressed you, your detractions and even your inane antimatter fappery...my stance is still solid and backed by echelons of science.

Evidence 16: Oh...and if you have an issue with "flamebait" then perhaps you ought to keep your pithy comments to yourself. You seem quite comfortable with the flaming as long as it's you doing it. Don't like it? Don't start it.

Latest post:

Evidence 1: I promised I would not flame so, despite your tone and oblivious nature Eggnog, I will refrain.

Evidence 2: That in itself allows me to dismiss your vitriole disguised as debate.

Evidence 3: others who may be more perceptive and intelligent find this proposal favorable enough to vote for it.

Link to latest post: Evidence 1: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7722354&postcount=49

There is no need to provide anything more than the link unless asked otherwise. Plus, you posted your quotes in two topics.

Yes, that is in addition to the discussion I'm having with you about it later today.