Pelosi's Office

[rogue06]

Sorry Rogue- you are the one that always posts internet links, not me.

Always is a stretch. In fact I get grief because many of the sources I cite are from books and articles and people want links. That was juvie's big complaint when we argued about Islam. I would cite my the books I was getting my information from, and he would then demand that I provide the sources (links)^[1] -- you even whined about my citing the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

So I now often go and find something on the internet to confirm for others what I've read.

And the excuse that you were too busy is rather thin. You reply with alacrity when it suits you.

Some of us actually have lives in the real world. I cannot help it that you've chased off everyone that you considered friends and even family with your attitude.

I agree Juvenal called you a liar not a coward but you clearly exhibit symptoms of both.

So why did you bring him up? Did you realize that in spite of your claim to the contrary, you are the only one to say I ever ran away from a debate? Did you think you could just B.S. your way through like always?

Oh and please do not criticise me for making ad hominem remarks when you regularly engage in them. Or I might have to add hypocrite to coward and liar.

I wasn't criticizing, merely noting. Add what the likes of you might think is hardly important to me. My ego isn't so fragile that I need to rise to the bait every time someone challenges something I say or do.






1. I happen to live within walking distance from a university library and was very interested in Islam and other world religions back in the 90s and was a big fan of Huston Smith and Joseph Campbell. Somewhere I still have video tapes of every one of the latter's PBS specials. Never missed a one, and read several of his and Smith's works.

[Sparko]

Rather like your non existent knowledge of the history of your religion or the situation prevailing in the first century CE. However, none of that prevents you from maintaining beliefs are facts or writing arrant nonsense.


I agree but that did not remove the concerns expressed at the time.


Which rather confirms my original comment about issues, doesn't it?

umm. No. It doesn't

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

umm. No. It doesn't

"Which rather confirms my original comment about issues, doesn't it?"

Well we must agree to disagree on that final sentence.

[Sparko]

"Which rather confirms my original comment about issues, doesn't it?"

Well we must agree to disagree on that final sentence.

Hypatia_Alexandria, "and of course with a laptop missing the entire internal computer network is now compromised."

NOT.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Always is a stretch.

So far as your exchanges with me are concerned. As to Decline and Fall I was intrigued by your peculiar edition, that is all. I never "whined" I simply remarked that in all the editions I have read or seen that particular section appears in volume four and not volume three.

In fact I get grief because many of the sources I cite are from books and articles and people want links.

Why assume I am like all the others?

Some of us actually have lives in the real world.

Given that you did reply to me twice but simply chose to ignore my question, that excuse falls rather flat.

I cannot help it that you've chased off everyone that you considered friends and even family with your attitude.

What a bizarre comment.

I have no "friends" or "family" here. You [plural] are pseudonymous strangers nothing more. If you all dropped dead tomorrow it would not affect my life one jot. Likewise for all of you if I did the same. Get a grip please. This is a mere pastime [in part] to while away the months of this pandemic

There is no desire to obtain friends or be liked or popular. What are you a fourteen year old schoolboy desperate to be the form favourite?

So why did you bring him up?

As an illustration that others consider you lack probity.

Did you realize that in spite of your claim to the contrary, you are the only one to say I ever ran away from a debate?

So far you have run away.

I have asked you several times to provide evidence for a comment you made and each time you have either ignored that request or deflected.

As noted above your lack or response to that request has clearly nothing to do with time constraints given that you have replied to me but have just ignored that specific question.

I wasn't criticizing, merely noting.

Really? With several Google examples? That might be considered over-kill.

Add what the likes of you might think is hardly important to me.

Likewise.

My ego isn't so fragile that I need to rise to the bait every time someone challenges something I say or do.

Supporting your comments with evidence is necessary if you want to be given any semblance of credibility. And as noted for the third time in this reply. You did reply to me but singularly ignored that specific question.

1. I happen to live within walking distance from a university library and was very interested in Islam and other world religions back in the 90s and was a big fan of Huston Smith and Joseph Campbell. Somewhere I still have video tapes of every one of the latter's PBS specials. Never missed a one, and read several of his and Smith's works.

Is that an attempt to impress? If so, why?

[rogue06]

The goal of news outlets is to sell. They will overdramatize anything to make a buck.

As I go through various science articles reading about new discoveries it is amazing how often the coverage declares that something "revolutionizes" a field or that "it totally overthrows conventional wisdom" on a subject and that we need to throw out earlier theories. More often than not it is just sensationalism used to grab a reader's attention and not even something new at all -- like this garbage about something "questioning a fundamental assumption in the study of human evolution" which I posted about in November.

science-news-cycle.jpg

science reporting.jpg

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

As I go through various science articles reading about new discoveries it is amazing how often the coverage declares that something "revolutionizes" a field or that "it totally overthrows conventional wisdom" on a subject and that we need to throw out earlier theories. More often than not it is just sensationalism used to grab a reader's attention and not even something new at all -- like this garbage about something "questioning a fundamental assumption in the study of human evolution" which I posted about in November.

science-news-cycle.jpg

science reporting.jpg

Amusing cartoon but what relevance does it have to this thread?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

This is literally the equivalent to saying "Oh, this black guy refers to himself as the n-word. He clearly has no issues with the term" to justify your use of the n-word.

In your opinion.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Hypatia_Alexandria, "and of course with a laptop missing the entire internal computer network is now compromised."

NOT.

What I quoted recognises that any risk to networks being breached raises concerns as well as potential risks [although I appear to have overstated the significance of the laptop].

You acknowledged that fact yourself when you wrote "But I am sure they will do an internal audit of all of the computers and networks to screen for any such things, or other infiltrations. That is SOP when there has been any sort of break in or exposure."

If, as you contend, no risk was posed by this break-in why would that procedure even be considered?

[CivilDiscourse]

what i quoted recognises that any risk to networks being breached raises concerns as well as potential risks [although i appear to have overstated the significance of the laptop].

You acknowledged that fact yourself when you wrote "but i am sure they will do an internal audit of all of the computers and networks to screen for any such things, or other infiltrations. That is sop when there has been any sort of break in or exposure."

if, as you contend, no risk was posed by this break-in why would that procedure even be considered?

cya

[Gondwanaland]

In your opinion.

Nope. Not my opinion. Basic reality. You are using racial slurs, and then trying to justify it by naming someone who has reclaimed said racial slur. That's exactly the same as using the n-word racial slur and justify it by naming, say, a rapper, who uses the term having reclaimed it. Zero difference.

[CivilDiscourse]

Nope. Not my opinion. Basic reality. You are using racial slurs, and then trying to justify it by naming someone who has reclaimed said racial slur. That's exactly the same as using the n-word racial slur and justify it by naming, say, a rapper, who uses the term having reclaimed it. Zero difference.

Remember her full throated defense on "the other forum" where she was defending someone's racial slur against Chinese doctors?

[Gondwanaland]

Remember her full throated defense on "the other forum" where she was defending someone's racial slur against Chinese doctors?

Oh man, yeah I nearly forgot that gem!