I hadn’t noticed that Rick hasn’t been posting. I suspect he is busy with work and day-to-day life.
I don’t believe the POTUS-elect is Muslin. It would be fine if he was, but I don’t believe he is. Instead I believe him to be a fine Percale. 350 threads per inch (at least!). Very nice indeed. I salute him.
Curious observation
With all due respect.. Why can't you guys stay calm?.. What's the need to panic like this? We're here for the polywell research and development and failing that, the rational speculation, like Doc Carlson has spurred on.. Everything else, especialy something as (dare I say) base as politics, is just accessory. Really not worth bickering about! And that said, I'm not even a moderate 
I imagine he is just very busy, very very busy!
If there was a way to easily see when someone last logged in, then you might at least know if someone was probably reading messages, but not having the time to reply. (As is the case on some forums.)
I know myself I've been so busy at times I've not had time to read/reply to messages in forums for months, if not years in some cases!
If there was a way to easily see when someone last logged in, then you might at least know if someone was probably reading messages, but not having the time to reply. (As is the case on some forums.)
I know myself I've been so busy at times I've not had time to read/reply to messages in forums for months, if not years in some cases!
I only assumed that you were talking to me because there was precisely ONE post prior to your post that could even possibly be interpretted as supporting Obama being a Muslim. You say you weren't.Mike Holmes wrote:Seedload, did I mention your name? You're not one of the "dumbasses who want to make an issue out of religion"? Then I wasn't talking about you, was I? I'm saying the conspiracy theory is dumb, not you. I only disagree with you, if at all, with regards to the level to which it is "outlandish."
I will take it on faith that you aren't attributing thoughts to me that aren't really there.
Faith is fading.Mike Holmes wrote:And to imply that a man who edited the Harvard Law Review is a terrorist in disguise is quite as outlandish as denying the moon landing.
Faith fully eroded.Mike Holmes wrote:So... go ahead, speculate that he has Muslim leanings;
So I take it there have never been terrorist supporters at Harvard?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
Seed man... I'm apparently being very unclear somehow. I'm saying that I agree with you, that if what's under discussion here is if Obama is sympathetic toward Islam, that this is not an unreasonable conclusion. As for actually being a Muslim - well I guess we could get into a semantic argument there. He certainly doesn't pray five times a day facing toward Mecca in public places like Muslims are supposed to do (as an example, I'm not trying to make a definitive argument here for MSimon to come in and discredit with exceptions that actually prove the rule).
As I say, the implication made by most people propagating the rumor is that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer. You don't make that argument, nor even propound the argument that he's a Muslim. So I can't, therefore, be speaking about you. Can I?
Perhaps if I had made it clearer somehow that I'm addressing the entire audience who may be reading (the whole world) and not you specifically? It seems to me that you feel that if I follow on your words, referencing the same arguments you do, that I must therefore be slamming you. I'm not.
In the name of clarity, I'll try to be very clear here: I don't think that Seedload is making the argument that Obama is a terrorist, or a Muslim, or anything of that nature, and I'm not impugning him in any way.
That doesn't change my opinion at all. I'm just trying to make sure that people understand the argument. To restate it yet again, the idea that Obama may have some sympathy towards Muslims is not at all controversial, I agree. The implication intended by the conspiracy theory in question (intended by idiots, not Seedload), however, to link Obama with Islam so as to create some notion that he may be in cahoots with terrorists is quite, quite absurd.
Let me be very specific, the idiots to whom I refer are the same folks who, during the campaign, liked to refer to Obama as Barrak Hussein Osama. His last name is Arabic, and does rhyme with Osama, it's all true. His father was a Muslim. That all adds up to precisely nothing in terms of terrorist sympathies, but some folks hoped that they could mobilize a small group of likeminded idiots by using such tactics.
Thank goodness that level of stupidity is rare.
Any better? No?
Mike
As I say, the implication made by most people propagating the rumor is that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer. You don't make that argument, nor even propound the argument that he's a Muslim. So I can't, therefore, be speaking about you. Can I?
Perhaps if I had made it clearer somehow that I'm addressing the entire audience who may be reading (the whole world) and not you specifically? It seems to me that you feel that if I follow on your words, referencing the same arguments you do, that I must therefore be slamming you. I'm not.
In the name of clarity, I'll try to be very clear here: I don't think that Seedload is making the argument that Obama is a terrorist, or a Muslim, or anything of that nature, and I'm not impugning him in any way.
That doesn't change my opinion at all. I'm just trying to make sure that people understand the argument. To restate it yet again, the idea that Obama may have some sympathy towards Muslims is not at all controversial, I agree. The implication intended by the conspiracy theory in question (intended by idiots, not Seedload), however, to link Obama with Islam so as to create some notion that he may be in cahoots with terrorists is quite, quite absurd.
Let me be very specific, the idiots to whom I refer are the same folks who, during the campaign, liked to refer to Obama as Barrak Hussein Osama. His last name is Arabic, and does rhyme with Osama, it's all true. His father was a Muslim. That all adds up to precisely nothing in terms of terrorist sympathies, but some folks hoped that they could mobilize a small group of likeminded idiots by using such tactics.
Thank goodness that level of stupidity is rare.
Any better? No?
Mike
Mike...Mike Holmes wrote:Seed man... I'm apparently being very unclear somehow. I'm saying that I agree with you,
Any better? No?
Thanks for the clarification. I acknowledge that I may have misinterpretted some things you said as being addressed to me.
There were so many other things that you said that I completely disagree with. For example, I would NOT vote for a true Muslim for President of the United States. Your statement that you like to tell people that you gladly would to mess with their heads makes me believe that you would probably think this to be very intolerant of me. I doubt that that discussion would be any more fruitful than our previous ones.
regards
Now that the campaign is over it is official. Barry will be referred to as Barack Hussein Obama.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... UyT5jwotXw
I wonder why so many were touchy about his name during the campaign?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... UyT5jwotXw
I wonder why so many were touchy about his name during the campaign?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
Seedload... so we can only productively converse when we agree? Or you're painting me as somebody who cannot be reasonably dealt with? I think you're not giving either of us enough credit.
But, hey, I'm really not interested in debating that particular point, anyhow. We've already gotten far enough afield of the conspiracy theory subject with regard to the project.
I'm more interested in Aero's point. That he's sure they should have been done by now. Do people agree with that assessment? You all know better than I do, not having ever been involved in such a process in academia or such an experiment per se in business. All I can say is that the business I work for doesn't make big movements without months of analysis first. So it doesn't seem at all odd to me, from that admittedly limited perspective.
I understand that Bussard was, in fact, under Navy gag order for years, his research being funded by them. But I didn't think that this particular series of tests had such strings attached.
Mike
P.S. Deleting threads (other than spam) is a very bad idea. It gives the appearance that we're redacting what we've said as a community when things disappear. If we communicate imperfectly with each other, or vociferously disagree, then people will just have to understand that we're human beings and that's the normal course. Further, if for instance I've done something shameful or bad, I should be publicly corrected for it here, so that I won't do it again. Or, at least so that the reasonable side can be seen to be reasonable. If you delete the correspondance, then we get to forget that we're fallible for a while til we err again. Learn from the bad, do better next time. Don't erase it. I, at least, want to own my mistakes.
But, hey, I'm really not interested in debating that particular point, anyhow. We've already gotten far enough afield of the conspiracy theory subject with regard to the project.
I'm more interested in Aero's point. That he's sure they should have been done by now. Do people agree with that assessment? You all know better than I do, not having ever been involved in such a process in academia or such an experiment per se in business. All I can say is that the business I work for doesn't make big movements without months of analysis first. So it doesn't seem at all odd to me, from that admittedly limited perspective.
I understand that Bussard was, in fact, under Navy gag order for years, his research being funded by them. But I didn't think that this particular series of tests had such strings attached.
Mike
P.S. Deleting threads (other than spam) is a very bad idea. It gives the appearance that we're redacting what we've said as a community when things disappear. If we communicate imperfectly with each other, or vociferously disagree, then people will just have to understand that we're human beings and that's the normal course. Further, if for instance I've done something shameful or bad, I should be publicly corrected for it here, so that I won't do it again. Or, at least so that the reasonable side can be seen to be reasonable. If you delete the correspondance, then we get to forget that we're fallible for a while til we err again. Learn from the bad, do better next time. Don't erase it. I, at least, want to own my mistakes.