Discussion in 'The Study' started by Earl Weiss, Dec 4, 2018.
Agreed. But thread swerves are nothing new on MT...as this entire thread is evidence.
@elder999 - I'm curious what you found funny in all those posts....
Oh. I was wrong. Not everyone here knows about my career.
For the record, as I've posted elsewhere since 2005, after earning a B.A. in religious studies and M.Ed from Marist College, at age 16. ,I went on to earn degrees in mechanical and nuclear engineering, a master's in nuclear engineering and a PhD. in applied physics at Stanford .I spent 12 years working at Los Alamos National Lab, working on things I've mostly only talked around......I also lost on JEOPARDY!-that's me, in the corner....you can see my introduction from this forum, from back in 2005, here
All of which is as relevant to this discussion as your education and career, that is to say,beyond our interest in the subject and willingness and ability to comprehend others' data, not at all.
However, when you insult green technology as a waste of time and money, you insult me. After leaving Los Alamos and the work associated with it, I worked for two multinational utilities based in the U.S. Both invested heavily in alternative energy: wind, photovoltaic solar and thermal solar. I started my career in commercial nuclear power, and I've run coal, wind photovoltaic and thermal solar installations. In the last case, I actually built and ran one, so it's a subject I know more than a little about. For the record, you can read what little I posted about it, here.
Utilities are notoriously risk averse, yet they are happily building photovoltaic and wind installations.
Well, wind is free fuel(BTW, you're just wrong with the whole flat land thing, again. There are hills all over the country with wind turbines on them or on top of them), and with solar, the fuel falls from the sky for free. Neither requires a lot of people to run and maintain.
In short, they're profitable.
That they are as relevant to a discussion on climate change as a tuba is to a shark....
Resoundingly agree with needing a third Party. Been saying it for years.
For my family and my piers, our healthcare cost have doubled, some tripled. What is left of middle income is taking the worst hit in history. A government incentive to not get married, have children and accept making less money to that a person can capitalize from government aid is wrong on so many levels. Just one of the by-products of Obamacare. Another was a reduce in wage increase for most employees 2 years in a row.
I agree, the first attempt at something of this scale was bound to have wrinkles. But we seriously have the cart before the horse. If we can fix the decision making model (3 Party system) much of our challenging issues will fix themselves.
That is just hilarious. I am right, and you are wrong. What are you 12 years old?
Yeah, no. I'm nearly sixty.
Facts are facts, though, and I'm right
Prove me wrong. Use facts
Oh, and name two. Still waiting.....
.....'cause, you know......
... I'm right, and you're wrong
Accurate, but an odd reaction in a thread that is, itself, a major swerve from another thread. That kind of side conversation occurs rather regularly on MT.
I wholeheartedly agree that a third party would be a great step. As a vocal moderate, I often find both parties’ stances frustrating.
But I think you and I may we’ll have wandered into what would be deemed political discussion, which would violate TOS. If you’re interested in continuing, PM me.
And that's why I'm laughing.....political posts to a scientific question? Really?
Want a picture of everything that's wrong with America? Start there
And @dvcochran, still waiting for you to NAME TWO???
Because I think it's too important to the planet to allow anyone to nod and agree with your wrongly hilarious nonsense..,
You and I agree more often than not, but you’re acting like the arbiter of what’s valid for this thread. Your addresses to both me and DV come across a more than a little condescending.
What, in the name of Buddha's beard, do Obamacare, FOIA suits, and travel have to do with climate change?
I'll wait , just like I'm waiting for dv to "name two."
As for dv, well, if he wouldn't post inaccurate, misleading , easily disproven and patently false ( you know, @dvcochran : WRONG) information like "they can only go back 2000 years in the ice shelf," I might show a little bit more respect
Nearly 14 years later, my rule hasn't changed.
Post stupid ****, get stupid treatment.
And what did climate change have to do with TKD forms? Swerves are quite normal - you’ve been on here more than long enough to be aware of that. You object this time because you don’t like the swerve. Tough. It’s a public forum.
I've been guilty of thread drift a few times myself, but the admin. specifically said to not get political.
More to the point, I asked a specific question, and got political gobbledygook for an answer.....if some find my responses to gobbledygook disrespectful, well, I'm sorry, and don't take it personally.... it's not you: I don't even know you.
I have no respect for your non-answers and falsehoods.....or any other errant nonsense.
What non-answers did I provide?
As for the political, we acknowledged that. We had a brief, amicable exchange, and moved one. That’s probably why no admins stepped in.
Other than rating your posts as "funny," how have I disrespected them?
You don’t consider mocking to be disrespectful?
I don't consider a smiley face that says, "This made me laugh" mocking.
Trust me, I have not yet begun to mock!
In this case though, I do not believe it was thread drift. Rather, political nonsense was put forth as somehow being an answer in a discussion on the science of climate change. That isn’t thread drift. That is gobbly-gook123
Separate names with a comma.