Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[AlabamAlum]

smdh is 'shaking my damned head'....I was responding to the Ent/Talent Alabama stuff.

[Da Geezer]

thanks, I'm not too with it on these text abbreviations

[AlabamAlum]

NP TTYL DIAF

[Wild Hoss]

thanks, I'm not too with it on these text abbreviations

The last four words of that post were superfluous. :D

[Wild Hoss]

NP TTYL DIAF

GFAB

[AlabamAlum]

How dare you!

AFL-CIO WKRP!

[edindetroit]

what is smdh?

Shaking my d??? head

[iam416]

LOL @ "mitigating" something that is "beyond the point of no return" according to settled science.

Like going inside the house to get away from an incoming nuclear bomb.

It's over. We're done for. That's it. Settled science spoke. If you disagree, your quarrel isn't with me, but with settled science.

[iam416]

BTW, Geezer, your friend must have not read the bulk of my posts. But that's still nice to know. I do my best to be fair and engage in honest discussions.

[hack]

Right. You can pretend that ``settled science'' means we cannot influence the intensity of the outcome, but I know you're not that stupid. You're not stupid at all. But you may not have whatever it takes -- courtesy, courage, information, perhaps -- to stop calling me names and discuss it rationally. If you find that missing piece, and want to stop being an intellectual bully that quickly descends into namecalling as a defense mechanism, you know where to find me.

[iam416]

FTR, I don't pretend that "settled science" means the outcome cannot be influenced, I know "point of no return" means the outcome cannot be influenced. I'm quite clear. That you intentionally miss this is consistent with the amount of good faith you have in discussing this topic. It's what you do.

[Da Geezer]

It's fucking insane. It's like saying that since you have a paper cut you might as well run into a buzzsaw. Of course there's value in mitigating the damage! Talent doesn't have the balls to engage with me on it but I think it's obvious that there's a cost-benefit analysis to be done on mitigation.

No, Talent simply doesn't want to debate with you if you refuse to use what he and I would consider evidence, facts.

Let's get off religion and talk about something simple. In a previous post you said something on the order of "everyone knows that white males are the most benefited element of society". That is what you call fact.

In the Ballenger decision, the evidence showed that UM Law school gave 20 points extra points on a "scorecard" that was used to evaluate prospective applicants, to applicants with a certain skin pigmentation. 12 points were given for a perfect score on the LSAT. Now, those are a facts.. The proper way to debate is to present facts that support your opinion. After I present my fact to support my opinion, your response should be a fact (like, say, data showing a diverse incoming class results in higher pay for graduates, something like that.). But you persist in saying the equivalent of "whatever..." after you cannot find any facts to support your opinion. Talent says, "Why debate then?"

If you want an example of debate, go to the recruiting thread and find where Talent and I were debating my assertion that Ohio was accepting "less than B10 academically qualified" football players or something like that. It got a little heated. But, to support his claim, he pointed to Chris Perry, the running back that UM had some time ago, who had gone to a military academy and transferred to UM. Perry was a fact. This fall, I poked him that Ohio had recruited a JC left tackle. Fact.

Frankly, when you say things like D. Cheney sold influence or that Scalia was corrupt, you need some facts. Just repeating leftist orthodoxy is not a fact. What is frightening is that you don't even seem to realize you are doing this. The three amigos are one thing, but you are better than this.

[hack]

No, I don't think so. I think you're a bully that's been hit back. Ever since you posted that sloppy Easterbrook story that annoyed me with how shallow it was you claim that suddenly I am playing some sort of intentional game with you. I don't know what that is. I just asked for clarification, and was called awful. These are just excuses. No one else has this problem with me. Just you. I'm not in your head and can't know for sure, but it looks to me like you lack the balls to discuss something here unless you're absolutely certain you can bully your way to a definite conclusion. And sometimes you might be just trolling. I don't know. But you should sack up and quit it with the name-calling, that's for sure. Uncalled for.

[entropy]

hack... talent is messing around with his science says..

[Hannibal]

God bless this election

[youtube]grD_IINiH9c[/youtube]